Consider the source
"A recent paper coauthored by Microsoft researchers...."
'Nuff said. We now know why the paper pegs IE 10 as the fastest brower.
consider the article?
Crockford wasn't involved in the original MS co-authored paper, he merely took its findings regarding benchmarking and used his own js application as a benchmark. I'm involved in a couple of projects which are pretty js heavy and like you generally find that Chrome is markedly faster, closely followed by FF. Crockford's results are interesting with regard to IE10 because it has only just been released as a platform preview. It will be interesting to see how it shapes up at full release - all good from my point of view, healthy competition driving the technology forward.
Consider the test...
Auto-Microsoft bashing failure
Crockford not at MS
But for how long?
Warms the cockles of my heart to...
… see Google fail so miserably :)
On a Microsoft report of a Microsoft product?
My what small cockles you have...
Re: g e
"On a Microsoft report of a Microsoft product?"
It's DOM manipulation that's always slowed all our JS applications to an absolute crawl in IE. Don't really care about JS performance until they sort their awful rendering engine
Can't wait for 2013 now for IE 10! lol
Sounds Like Cheating to Me
Tuning software to a specific benchmark is like studying for a test you have access to - you only bother to learn what you know will be asked. The only valid benchmarking results from running against a benchmark the testees didn't have access to in advance.
Your goal is to have the benchmark results be scalable to the real world and if the testees are allowed to tune specifically to the benchmark this will not be the case unless the coders are volunteering to tune their code to each and every user's actual code also.
Everybody tunes to the benchmark, because those
are the numbers the tech rags report. My issue with this isn't whether it is tuned to the benchmarks or even whether or not he's an MS shill. It is that he is comparing an unreleased product to those in production.
If we're including IE10 then why aren't the pre-production / nightly versions of the other browsers on the list?
So Firefox best....
I love misleading article titles and editorials. The article was really saying that with this 'suspect' benchmark Firefox was fasted out of all the currently released browsers.....
Don't think it is fair to compare IE10 as it is only a preview rather than a fully functioning browser with all Microsoft's traditional bloat
Are we native yet?
Cool. That answers this question:
To be Fair
It doesn't matter how they score in these trivial tests, its how they perform in real world tests. So Google have tuned their browser to the most commonly used code, thats only natural. I stand by Chrome as the 'real' fastest.
you don't need to hear a fart to
know it stinks.
Crankshaft was inspired by Sun's Java HotSpot performance engine. Here is your hotspot fart.
Well there's your problem!
I don't buy it.
just The Good Parts
So, yeah, I agree. He's not going to be right, just because he's Crockford, but he is going to be someone worth listening to with the cynicism dialled down 2 notches.
Also, Crockford helped me lose three stone one summer.
Sorry, but about half of 'Good Parts' was a repetition of the first half. Even so, it was a pretty short book.
As for this being a 'Real World Test' that is utter rubbish - there is no such thing, as all real world usage has some interaction with the DOM, which automatically invalidates any attempt to test the JS engine on its own, the best you can do is deliberately test including the DOM, and accept that this result is dependant on the rendering engine.
"all real world usage has some interaction with the DOM"
You are apparently unaware of nodejs (V8) and couchdb (SpiderMonkey) for instance. Not all JS runs in a browser nowadays.
Well aware of both of them, and of Hyperwave too. Which of them is comparable with IE10?
There is a modicum of repetition. I believe that's called "building on what we learned earlier". There is slightly more than a modicum of repetition in the appendices. I believe that's called "a useful summary of everything we learned earlier". You'll find both of these in most text books worth the cover price. The second half in no way repeats the first half.
∀x(p) ∧ ∃x(!p) == FALSE
No wider point here, other than to pick up on your incorrect use of an absolute.
They ring in my head when I look at the list of browsers and see the usual stable releases and one ultra-bleeding-age hasn't-even-reached-beta version of a certain company's browser. I wonder what made him choose IE10 while sticking to Chrome 10, instead of Chrome 11 or 12 which have been readily available for longer than the IE developer preview.
Firefox performing well is a surprise, and further cements my opinion that JS performance isn't as big a deal in the real world as it's made out to be. In day-to-day usage both Opera and Chrome feel faster FF4. Maybe it's the more responsive user interface, but I'll stick with what 'feels' fastest regardless of whichever browser is currently waving its e-penis from the top of the benchmark table.
Right now, the main thing holding back Firefox is that their Garbage Collection algorithm is slower than Chrome, and introduces pauses when it runs. So for day-to-day performance issues, that is where the difference is likely to be. They are working on this at the moment, and have landed some improvements to the FF5 and FF6 code lines.
so where do i download IE10 for my linux machines and mac? Oh, that's right I can't.......so it is about as much use as a chocolate teapot!
Re: sounds great
That's ok... calm down, Apple will send you a dictat when you when you can / must download something for your Mac. They can't allow you to make such decisions yourself...
Anyway they probably already installed the IE10 beta "by mistake" ... then Skeletor decided to remove it without your permission while you were sleeping.
However, OP's point still stands - that IE is effectively part of one OS alone, whereas the others are all cross-platform stand-alone browsers. Even if IE10 is the best browser ever, no-one is about to use a different OS just for that. With the others, you don't have to - so a *Huge* minus for IE, then.
I could be wrong, of course - maybe I'll soon be typing "apt-get install IE10-non-free" ......or not
The guy's claims are bullshit. He's running his parse library against itself. Hardware also still plays a role. On my Atom N280 @ 1.4GHz, Opera 11.10 can run the same parse in ~3.3sec. Consistently. With sixty other tabs open. FF4.0.1 takes ~3.4sec consistently, run separately and with no other tabs open.
A program that runs once and exits, parsing plain text, is a TERRIBLE example of a modern web app. This just further advertises his shitty programming and inflated ego.
...you think you can come up with better real world tests? Show us.
The ability to recognize bad tests is not the same thing as the ability to write better ones. Just like how I can recognize a bad book when I read it, but can't necessarily write a better one.
That's exactly what I'm thinking. Even if you despise the coding of sites like Facebook, or take issue with certain workarounds in Google Docs/Reader/GMail etc, the fact remains that THOSE are actual sites which receive a lot of traffic.
This Crockford arrogates himself to the position of claiming that a specialized code-analysis toolkit WHICH RUNS ONCE LOCALLY AND EXITS, should supersede REAL code that uses REAL network connections to fetch actual data and update the page. Apparently he thinks IE10 would make a decent engine for some web application that does your taxes. Unfortunately our demands are often much greater.
I too have an impressive CV
Although an appropriately large payment will have me say Microsoft rules.
Who gives a shit about IE on Linux
Most of the reactions on here seem to me to be emotive around the fact that Microsoft might be doing something right for a change with IE. It's time to stop bashing MS for mistakes of two decades ago and start praising them for the things they are starting to do right with IE. The "real world" is about good user experience, not about 100% standards compliance or test results.
Who mentioned Linux?
#1, testing a not-even-released bleeding-edge product against current stable products is fair how? That gives IE a distinct advantage as IE10 SHOULD have more advanced tech in it.
#2, No one's bashing MS for mistakes made 2 decades ago. They're bashing MS for recent deceptive marketing BS.
#3, Standards compliance is an important part of the user experience in the "real world". If I code my site to be standards compliant then my customers are going to have a good experience in any standards compliant browser (assuming, of course, that my design carries a good experience to begin with) but will not have a good experience in a browser that doesn't follow standards. On the other hand, if I code my site to work in one specific, non-standards-compliant browser then only the people using that browser will have a good experience. But to be fair IE's standards compliance has gotten markedly better in the last few versions.
"The "real world" is about good user experience"
And although I am not a Chrome user, most people that I know that use Chrome feel that it is much faster for them than IE.
Microsoft are only harping on about standards and their latest browser tech because of the competition at the moment. You would quickly see them going back to the mistakes of two decades ago given a different environment.....
microsoft de-couple IE from their operating systems, the 2 decades of mistakes will carry on
or as someone put it
pwn me once shame on you, pwn me twice shame on me
Enterprise desktops lag behind
But many enterprise users are on XP with IE6.
So what good is IE9 or 10 when they require Vista and 7.
REe: Who gives a shit about IE on Linux
Most linux distros circulation is probably down to it being installed on 19$ switches, netbooks (which then get formatted and replaced by old XP so you can actually use it for something), set top boxes, or apache web servers that get 6 hits a month and are much loved by commodity hosting providers, as the markup is great.
Why people are complaining because Microsoft have not released a beta for linux... oh dear, where to start with this one... so many idiots, so little time...
Linux is useful for speed tests for the UK mirror service though, as a 650 MB download that gets deleted much more quickly.
but IE is sold illegally
Funny how it is that Microsoft employees always suggest that their illegal business practices should be ignored and everyone should only look at their technical work.
I have absolutely no intrerest in any company or their products when they count upon illegal practices to force the sale of their products. Period.
If you have a copy of IE, your opinion simiply does not count. Microsoft prevents it. And that includes your opinion of IE.
you will purchase IE again and again and again
Microsoft bundled IE to force you to buy it. You have to be real slow in the thinking department not to know that.
And the truth remains: The US Appellate Courts decided that commingling code between the OS and IE was in fact illegal. That has not changed. Microsoft continues that illegal practice despite the bad engineering.
Just how many copies of IE have you had? And how many of them did you purchase?
If you have a copy of IE, Microsoft mandates that your opinion matters not one bit. You will buy it again and again. Illegally. The consumer is not engaged in the illegal practice but Microsoft certainly is. All lawyers at Microsoft know that for fact. Maybe you have not figured it out yet?
That would be pretty slow thinking.
"testing a not-even-released bleeding-edge product against current stable products is fair how? That gives IE a distinct advantage as IE10 SHOULD have more advanced tech in it."
Or does it put Microsoft at a disadvantage because their product is not yet finished?
That said, it does seem that Crockford's testing contradicts his stated aim. First, he claims that most JS test suites don't test code as you would encounter in the wild. Then, instead of gathering a sample of real-world JS apps, he chooses to only test against his own, well-written codebase. I don't believe the test skewed his results for Microsoft (using a pre-release browser did that), but he did potentially skew his results against real-world JS apps.
Now that Microsoft has relegated itself to only trying to capture a subset of a subset of the browser market, how well IE performs on speed tests has become a lot less interesting.
Even if you disagree with the guy's methodology some of the usual........
........comments from the usual suspects that imply he is a paid stooge for MS slagging off Chrome show very clearly that they did not bother to read this bit of the article:
"Crockford admits that he expected Chrome to top the list. "My guess is that they overspecialized for specific styles of programming, and that Chrome was tripped up by a real program. There are some very smart people at Google, and I would expect them to rectify this.""
Now you can agree or disagree with what he says but his comments (or his work for that matter) cannot simply be dismissed as paid for by The Great Satan From Redmond.
Crockford's real-world vs. the real-real-world
Let me cut out Mr. Crockford's bias against DOM from this quote, and get it to the part that matters:
He goes on to say:
"My guess is that they overspecialized for specific styles of programming, and that Chrome was tripped up by a real program. There are some very smart people at Google, and I would expect them to rectify this."
Yes, probably "overspecialized" for more DOM intensive styles. You know, like most of the JS that will be encountered in the real-real-world (as opposed to the "real-world" where code analyzers are the majority of the code we run *boggle*).
As impressive as Mr. Crockford's CV may be, he has still missed the forest for the trees. He has created (and I propose we call this) "Yet Another Worthless Browser Benchmark" because of his particular gripes with DOM.
His definition of "the real world", then...
...is "one large well-written application"?
Whilst he may or not be a stooge for MS, I notice that we are given a lack of information in the article presented to us. When he talks about Chrome overspecialising for particular types of code, surly they have specialised for the 'most common code'. We are also given no indication of what types of operation's his code does and in what ratios, nor is it mentioned on what basis does he believe that his 'well written' code is indicative of 'real world code'.
No your final comment "Now you can agree or disagree with what he says but his comments (or his work for that matter) cannot simply be dismissed as paid for by The Great Satan From Redmond.", draws my interest, as if IE10 did not top the list or get very high, would anybody of paid any attention to this chaps benchmark?, additionally, I suspect he often works in a corporate environment (ie his customers environment), this his tools are designed with IE in mind.
Now you could call that scepticism with out cause, however there is not enough in the article el'reg provided to tell one way or the other. It would also not be out of character for articles/benchmarks to be more 'beneficial' to one browser over another.
I am not in any way defending this guy's benchmarking or any implicit assumptions he may be operating on. Indeed I am not in any way defending the ranking he has generated either. Several of the postings we see on this thread represent considered criticism of his work and they I have no problem with. I do however point out that the *main* thrust of *some* of the postings is that he *must* be some kind of paid shill for MS - it is that kind of posting where the messenger rather than the message is attacked that I was criticising.
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Product round-up Ten excellent FREE PC apps to brighten your Windows
- 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
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...