Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28

Thread: Firefox 18.0 Lets Loose IonMonkey Compiler

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,548

    Default Firefox 18.0 Lets Loose IonMonkey Compiler

    Phoronix: Firefox 18.0 Lets Loose IonMonkey Compiler

    Mozilla Firefox 18.0 is now available. The main feature of this open-source web-browser update is the introduction of IonMonkey, a faster JavaScript compiler...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI2OTQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    70

    Default

    One thing to note is that Ionmonkey is used only for long running code, like Games and web-applications.
    For the usual JS used in web pages, the older "Jagermonkey+Typed Inference" is used.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    394

    Default

    I just compared the two. Firefox 18 was actually slower than Firefox 17 running Sunspider

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    57

    Default

    The problem with Firefox is not 'speed'. Well, not speed by their definition. The Mozilla team defines 'speed' in the sense of bandwidth: how many operations/second the browser is capable of bringing. This is the wrong definition for most users.

    What the users talk about when they say 'speed' is actually latency, not bandwidth. I couldn't care less about the bandwidth of the JavaScript engine most of the day since I don't play games etc in the browser. What I do care about is the amount of time it takes to load a web page. This is 'latency', that is how long it takes from clicking a link to the page being fully rendered. In this test Chrome wins hands down.

    Another very big problem with Firefox is that there is no true separation between tabs. Several times a day it happens that I open a few tabs in the background, only to get Firefox unresponsive due to one of the tabs behaving badly. This is unacceptable. In Google's Chrome tabs are separated to different processes and the browser never becomes unresponsive.

    Mozilla should fix the real problems, not some niche geeky problems. If they don't they will continue to loose market share in an alarming rate.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amehaye View Post
    The problem with Firefox is not 'speed'. Well, not speed by their definition. The Mozilla team defines 'speed' in the sense of bandwidth: how many operations/second the browser is capable of bringing. This is the wrong definition for most users.

    What the users talk about when they say 'speed' is actually latency, not bandwidth. I couldn't care less about the bandwidth of the JavaScript engine most of the day since I don't play games etc in the browser. What I do care about is the amount of time it takes to load a web page. This is 'latency', that is how long it takes from clicking a link to the page being fully rendered. In this test Chrome wins hands down.

    Another very big problem with Firefox is that there is no true separation between tabs. Several times a day it happens that I open a few tabs in the background, only to get Firefox unresponsive due to one of the tabs behaving badly. This is unacceptable. In Google's Chrome tabs are separated to different processes and the browser never becomes unresponsive.

    Mozilla should fix the real problems, not some niche geeky problems. If they don't they will continue to loose market share in an alarming rate.
    You should read up on project snappy which has been going for 18 months. (if you really cared you would have known about it) There you can also read why you are wrong about true separation of tabs being the answer to snappy design.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ferdinand View Post
    You should read up on project snappy which has been going for 18 months. (if you really cared you would have known about it) There you can also read why you are wrong about true separation of tabs being the answer to snappy design.
    Snappy is indeed relevant to the first part of my rant. However with regard to the second part (process separation) project Electrolysis is more relevant: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis


    Unfortunately this project seems to have been abandoned: http://lawrencemandel.com/2011/11/15...s-development/

    This is more important to me than sheer performance. I usually open several links in the background, so the actual time it takes to render is irrelevant. What *is* relevant is the fact that I actually have to wait for them to render since Firefox is a single process application. If firefox was a process-per-tab application, with another process for the UI, I could open new tabs while waiting for the old ones to render. Also, stuck tabs would not freeze Firefox. This is the single most important feature that Firefox is lacking and will probably be lacking in the near future.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    206

    Default Hmm .(

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    I just compared the two. Firefox 18 was actually slower than Firefox 17 running Sunspider
    Actually the javascript disaster of Firefox is an example of really poor management.
    I can't remember how often the code-generation stage got completely rewritten in the last couple of yours, and now basically they end up with something similar to V8 (developed by google).

    For me the big question actually is:
    - Why not opt for a clean design in the first place? Compiling dynamically typed languages is not something that has not been there before...
    - Why not use the code developed by google? V8 simply is the fastest javascript runtime, and its open-source
    The same basically goes for gecko. Why develop everything by yourself, when you can get it for free elsewhere. Actually gecko's clumsy codebase is the reason why firefox still does not have features like process-per-tab, and why a heavy web-app in one thread can destrroy the browsing experience of another tab (as everything is strictly single-threaded).

    However, I still use FireFox as its graphic rendering engine based on Cairo is painting web-pages at light velocity when using intel's SNA drivers =)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Creve Coeur, Missouri
    Posts
    394

    Default

    There is one major upside to only one process for the browser. It uses a LOT less RAM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    There is one major upside to only one process for the browser. It uses a LOT less RAM.
    Ok, lets talk about threads. As threads share the same process space, there is no real disadvanatge to use multiple threads - however, Firefox has an inherently single-threaded rendering model/engine.
    Using multiple threads would allow multicore-CPUs to shine, and it would reduce the amount of stutter when one tab taxes the CPU,

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LinuxID10T View Post
    There is one major upside to only one process for the browser. It uses a LOT less RAM.
    Furthermore, when looking at the +500mb RSS memory allocated by my currently running FF instance, I don't believe memory savings were the main motivation here ^^

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •