'Real' JavaScript benchmark topped by...Microsoft

Warms the cockles of my heart to...

… see Google fail so miserably :)

cool

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.

Title schmitle

If we're including IE10 then why aren't the pre-production / nightly versions of the other browsers on the list?

Are we native yet?

"The approach is similar to what Firefox has done with the TraceMonkey extension to its JavaScript engine. TraceMonkey does not use adaptive compilation, but it works to detect code loops and covert them to assembly code."

Cool. That answers this question:

http://arewenativeyet.com/

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!

"His benchmark is based on JSLint, a JavaScript code quality tool developed by Crockford himself. It's designed to look for problems in JavaScript programs, and it too is a JavaScript program. Unlike existing JavaScript benchmarks, Crockford says, his is more representative of large, well-written JavaScript programs – because JSLint is a large well-written JavaScript program."

I don't buy it.

He says that his benchmark is more "real" because it represents large, well-written JavaScript programs because it's based on his code. I'll let the second assumption (i.e, that his code is well-written) stand because I don't intend to refute it. Instead I intend to use it against him.

Instead, I'll focus on the much larger initial assumption: that "real" JavaScript is large, well-written code. The "large" part may well be true, but if you look at JavaScript in the wild, "well-written" is very debatable.

If he wanted to put forth his benchmark as one valid for testing "proper" JavaScript performance, then we could just look at the second assumption for validity. But the first assumption is so far at odds with the prevailing evidence that I believe that it is Mr. Crockford's responsibility to prove his point.

Show us, Mr. Crockford, with a valid study proving that the majority of JavaScript out there being consumed on the web today is well written. Please. I would love to believe that to be true.

sounds great

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!

ice.

Meh

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.

The new IE10 core....is this 32bit or 64bit? Because 64bit IE9 is dog-slow. Possibly the speed improvement in IE10 would just come from porting Chakra. He also fails to acknowledge that DOM operations and general rendering are integral to a web application as a whole. A better benchmark for javascript game performance would be measuring the resource consumption of JS Workers threading. In fact, his application doesn't really seem to make proper use of concurrent multithreaded javascript AT ALL. I'll have to look more closely, but I don't think I saw any Float operations either.

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.

Who gives a shit about IE on Linux

Forget market share stats. The truth is consumers and enterprise customers are the biggest users of IE and so the performance of IE matters very much in the real world. Testing IE10 preview is fair, the point I suspect was to show how good next generation JavaScript engines will be.

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.

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.

His definition of "the real world", then...

...is "one large well-written application"?

oh yeah, right. the real world of javascript is a wild, wild west of code horribly written and mashed together, copy-pasted over and over again from the same stupid "here's how to make letters jump"-style tutorials.

@Arctic fox.

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.