Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: Impact of implicit arrays...
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 12:23:38 -0700
Organization: n/a
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <nkhcvs$flg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <njhj52$hl3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <4a1c28ea-447b-4e9b-9c75-68ef85c379e7@googlegroups.com> <njq6qn$qc3$1@gioia.aioe.org> <a1db3c29-049f-44a0-ae2d-e6c38776ddd7@googlegroups.com> <nkccds$mm6$1@dont-email.me> <nkce18$7cu$1@solani.org> <nkcf21$3ca$1@dont-email.me> <nkcf7i$3ca$2@dont-email.me> <nkdna9$54f$1@solani.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 19:23:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="98084a227c6f2f039ecddd7950c40a31"; logging-data="16048"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+FUBvNb23Sif0gnfw/n5le9h+25H+NiXg="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
In-Reply-To: <nkdna9$54f$1@solani.org>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tYpXVXPWgPY0UkRww3BfTkt7ioU=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:30712

On 6/22/2016 2:55 AM, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
> On 22.06.2016 at 00:31, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>> On 6/21/2016 3:28 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
>>> On 6/21/2016 3:10 PM, Christoph M. Becker wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then you might be interested in typed arrays, see, for instance,
>>>> <https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/JavaScript/Typed_arrays>.
>>
>> Although, why should I use full blown dynamic arrays, when these types
>> arrays will work fine? Humm, they almost have to be more efficient in
>> this respect.
>
> I presume they're more efficient, but I've never used them so can't
> tell.  Most likely there are multiple benchmarks available on the web,
> and of course, you could do your own.

Agreed! FWIW, I have already did some of my own, and intrusive style is 
around 1.8x faster. Heck, functional style functions totally lock up the 
browser and use a lot of memory on that shi%ty Edge browser; I have to 
kill the process. Chrome works fine, and gives me timing information. I 
have tested normal arrays both functional and intrusive, and intrusive 
certainly wins for me. I will post the test today or tomorrow. I am 
think of using WebWorkers for the tests because they do not lock up the 
damn browser for the duration of process!

;^o