What I would like to see...
Oh wait, here they are... thanks Google
if MS and Apple hadn't joined the standardisation process . And I'm sure channel9.MSDN is really unbiased.
Is this really important?
I mean, to me, as a user? (I'm not an IT professional, more a tinkerer, so there's a risk I'm going to sound dumb here)
Has JS performance been so bad in the past that it noticeable worsened a user's experience? Are computers of (say) the last three years still not powerful enough work with inefficient JS engines without delaying a web page for a couple of seconds? An extra 2 second delay would irritate me, for sure.
My gut feel is that slow-loading sites are a whole lot more problematic, and this is all a silly pissing contest between rivals chasing headlines. But as I said before, I'm not an IT pro....
Yes it can be important
I refer the honourable gentleman to the following badly-named Reg article:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/07/google_buckyball_doodle/ - "Larry and Sergey's HTML5 balls drained my resources"
Re: Is this really important?
Casual user, browsing web pages and not FaceBook games? Probably not a great deal.
But if you are one of those people, or someone who frequents intensively Flashed pages, quite possibly a great deal.
Surely it won't make any difference to Flash? :-)
nitro not in chrome
nitro is not part of chrome. google decided to use alternative compiler called v8.
It's just a browser....
Crashes part-way through the peacekeeper benchmark for me...
This isn't about web pages any more. It is about vector graphics based client side programming akin to WPF or anything else.
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Chromecast video on UK, Euro TVs hertz so badly it makes us judder – but Google 'won't fix'