Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Firefox 18.0 Lets Loose IonMonkey Compiler

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      I just compared the two. Firefox 18 was actually slower than Firefox 17 running Sunspider

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hmm .(

          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 =)

          Comment


          • #6
            There is one major upside to only one process for the browser. It uses a LOT less RAM.

            Comment


            • #7
              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,

              Comment


              • #8
                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 ^^

                Comment


                • #9
                  ?


                  firefox.com still shows 17.01

                  I can't update since repos are all at 17

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    For me, performance is not the issue. I mean, in a geeky way it is exciting, but that is about it.

                    I find Chrome extremely frustrating to use due to its tab management, and complete lack of customizability. Not to mention its tendency to use a noticeable more bandwith due to constant pre-cacheing. I also find Chrome uses significantly more processing resources ony my notebook, as much as halving battery life, and hogging all my memory when I need it.

                    Also, you have to remember that the reason Firefox is so customizeable, is because the front-end is written in XUL, which is essentially Javascript, CSS, and XML. So increasing the speed of their JS runtime directly impacts responsiveness of the browser.

                    I'm not disputing that they didn't have some mismanagement, it was silly that they have had four different javascript engines in the way, but I support the concept of more-than-one reference open-source implementation. That is the best part of opensource, isn't it?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
                      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,
                      Every rendering model/engine is single threaded. Even webkit/chrome/safari.
                      What they do have is one process per tab, which Firefox lacks.

                      AFAIK, only Mozilla is working on a true multithreaded rendering engine. Its the mozilla Servo.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
                        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 =)
                        Why ask those questions here when you can just google it and find the answer?
                        In short: Mozilla's developers learn and the javascript engine gets better, ionmonkey is a clean design, jeagermonkey is a clean design, monopolies are bad
                        And calling gecko's codebase clumsy... Wow you got a lot of nerve.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
                            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 ^^
                            Post your about:memory
                            (If you complain about Firefox memory usage you should really post about:memory it is a much better way of complaining and explains a lot)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Linuxhippy View Post
                              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 ^^

                              Can you do this : type "about:memory?verbose" without the quotes in the URL bar, and post it here : https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/


                              And i do think FF uses lesser memory than Chrome for my workload. I opened ~800 images from a page. Chrome Out-of-memoried. Firefox got major hangs during loading. But once loaded, it had no problem.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X