The `super` keyword doesn't work as it should?

[medikoo]

/#!/JoePea wrote
> Is there any hard evidence of the performance cost of a dynamic super? So
> far I've read in various places (for example the thread linked to by
> @medikoo, Axel's 2ality article on super) about there being "overhead",
> but
> the articles haven't quantified or put into perspective the actual
> performance cost. Is it really that bad?

Adding any additional internal property for function that needs to be
updated depending on circumstances, definitely will bring noticeable
performance regression, and no-one would want to agree for that.

Still, for me (at least now) it's not clear why it actually implies any cost
(?) If /dynamic/, the super should bring not cost, as in clear thinking it's
just pure keyword which forces no action/calculation from
compiler/interpreter until the moment it's evaluated. It'll be great if
someone clarifies that.




--
View this message in context: http://mozilla.6506.n7.nabble.com/The-super-keyword-doesn-t-work-as-it-should-tp357032p357148.html
Sent from the Mozilla - ECMAScript 4 discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.