@@initialize, or describing subclassing with mixins
bzbarsky at MIT.EDU
Mon Jun 30 12:16:13 PDT 2014
On 6/30/14, 3:00 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski wrote:
> There are various approaches to that, all cost something, but the
> current approach is not free either.
> One heavy-handed optimization for
> the poor performance common case is to have Object's struct contain a
> pointer to a Node's host object
There are non-Node objects browsers have to support too, fwiw.
Would it help the discussion if UA implementors described how they solve
these problems now?
> Memory footprint is 32bits on ARM and x86, and 64
> bits on 64bit environments, per every Object, so pretty damn high.
Yep, which is why implementations don't do this. It's actually higher
than that because of alignment requirements...
> Aside, out of curiosity, which is more problematic in DOM currently:
> creation or appending of nodes?
Problematic in what sense? You mean time cost?
It's hard to say and depends a lot on context: creation involves a lot
more memory traffic; appending to a node depends a lot on whether that
node is in the document, etc.
> These different in-memory layouts can be applied to the state behind the
No, I mean different in-memory layouts for the JS object itself, not for
the DOM object it points to. For example, for some objects we (Gecko in
this case) want to have extra built-in slots for caching particular data
for the JIT to access quickly.
More information about the es-discuss