June 16, 2003
More Performant
In my recent JavaScript performance epiphany, I realized just how bad JScript performance can be. I thought I had two options: choose a better language, or resign myself to being a couple of years behind the Moore's Law curve. There's a third way, and it's interesting enough to tell. .NET. Watch out: I think I just took the red pill. Thus far, I've managed to avoid the wonders of .NET; I did install the runtime, and even the IDE, but never worked with it in earnest. The .NET framework includes "JScript.NET": a (fairly complete) implementation of ECMAScript on the .NET common-language runtime. And if you just install the runtime, you do get the compiler. Still the ugly duckling, but it's way faster than the old cscript/wscript. My anagrams code now runs in 7 seconds. And the arraytest code stressing "for(key in table)" is very dramatically improved:
Maybe this really is the best of all worlds: a dynamic language, compiled, with a rich class library compatible across environments. That class library is the learning curve ahead; now, there's no chasm to cross before I start climbing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vcard
archives: January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002 December 2001 November 2001 October 2001 September 2001 August 2001 July 2001 June 2001 see also: {groove: [ ray, matt, paresh, mike, jeff, john ], other: [ /* more blogroll to follow */ ] } The views expressed on this weblog are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer. RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||