JavaScript now just x1.5 slower than C

"Asm.js is a subset of standard JavaScript that is simple enough for JavaScript engines to optimize. Now Mozilla claims that with some new improvements it is at worse only 1.5 times slower than native code. How and why?
The problem with JavaScript as an assembly language is that it doesn't support the range of datatypes that are needed for optimization. This is good for human programmers because they can simply use a numeric variable and not worry about the difference between int, int32, float, float32 or float64. JavaScript always uses float64 and this provides maximum precision, but not always maximum efficiency.
The big single improvement that Mozilla has made to its SpiderMonkey engine is to add a float32 numeric type to asm.js. This allows the translation of float32 arithmetic in a C/C++ program directly into float32 arithmetic in asm.js. This is also backed up by an earlier float32 optimization introduced into Firefox that benefits JavaScript more generally. Benchmarks show that firefox f32 i.e. with the float32 type is still nearly always slower than native code, it is now approaching the typical speed range of native code.
Mozilla think that this isn't the last speed improvement they can squeeze from JavaScript. So who needs native code now?"

javascript more like javashit

these people are insane

>JavaScript now just x1.5 slower than C

The shit starts from this sentense. Its not javascript, its a small statically typed subset of javascript, which strangely reminds me of... C!

>>4

Ya, but you can compile to Javascript from other languages and just run this highly optimized code on the client's browser.

>>4
Jabbashit is C for the feeble-minded.

>>5
Cool, so we basically get an OS (browser) inside another OS (windows, osx, linux, etc). Inner-platform effect ftw!

>>7
Get rid of the outer OS and just use the browser. Add Lisp as an alternate script language, make S-exp versions of HTML and CSS, and you have a Lisp machine.

>>1
LANGUAGES DON'T HAVE SPEED, YA FUKIN RACEBOI RETOID. SUM LANGUAGES R NATURALLY EASIER TO OPTIMISE THAN OTHERS, BUT C'S NOTORIOUSLY HARD AS FUK TO OPTIMISE, SO I DUNNO WAT DA FUK UR RAMBLING ABOUT.

>>2-4,6,7
there is nothing wrong with javascript you imbecilic mogoloids. it's a beautiful, misunderstood, and definitely underrated functional language

>>10
there is nothing wrong with hitler you imbecilic mogoloids. he's a beautiful, misunderstood, and definitely underrated functional person

>>9
You being autistic and not being able or willing to interpret what he's saying does not make him wrong.
Obviously, when he says "language has x speed" he means "the best interpreter/compiler/etc so far of language has x speed".

>>12
HAHAHAHAA

TOO BAD DAT'S UNHELPFUL IF U FAIL TO MENTION WHICH IMPLEMENTATION U CONSIDER "DA BEST".

MANY C IMPLEMENTATIONS LIKE GCC ALSO LET YA SPECIFY DA OPTIMISATION OPTIONS U WANT. GCC HAS AN OPTION 2 DISABLE OPTIMISATION OPTIONS ENTIRELY, IT HAS ONE 2 OPTIMISE FOR SPACE, AND IT HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT LEVELS FOR OPTIMISING FOR TIME. ALL OF DOSE MODES ARE DIFFERENT SETS OF MORE SPECIFIC OPTIMISATION FEATURES, WHICH CAN BE ENABLED AND DISABLED IF U WANT FINER CONTROL OVER DA OPTIMISATION PROCESS.

BASICALLY, >>1'S STATEMENT IS EVEN MORE RETOIDED THAN SAYING DAT MEN R FASTER THAN WOMEN BECUZ ONE PARTICULAR MAN HAPPENS TO BE FASTER THAN ONE PARTICULAR WOMEN.

>>13
Too often writers believe that they can emphasize words by putting them in all capital letters. The only problem is that when all capital letters are used, the ability to read the words is reduced dramatically because all the letters are rectangles. A more effective way to emphasize words is sparingly to use bold, italics, underline, and combinations of these styles.

>>1
U R A FAKIN RETROID
READ YA SICP AGAIN YA NIGGA

>>14
>le pedophile sage

Well I'm gonna write a JavaScript interpreter in Haskell. Watch what happens to your precious speed now!

learn what bytecode is, you moron