Researcher: Chrome Is The Slowest JavaScript Browser

[Guest]

It has been no secret that JavaScript benchmarks are usually very biased and fine-tuned toward the talents of the browser you would want to shine.

Researcher: Chrome Is The Slowest JavaScript Browser : Read more

 

[subgum]

He is wrong.

 

[Guest]

Random Article Commenter: Anybody who suggests you're browser choice should be influenced javascript speed is either a misguided lemming, or being paid to say so.

 

[johnsmithhatesVLC]

[citation][nom]subgum[/nom]He is wrong.[/citation]
Stop being a blind fanboy. I bet you think Chrome can actually block ads too. Guess what, it can't; blame the extensions api.

 

[Yuka]

[citation][nom]johnsmithhatesVLC[/nom]Stop being a blind fanboy. I bet you think Chrome can actually block ads too. Guess what, it can't; blame the extensions api.[/citation]

You sure it's an extension's API thing? Cause if it is I'll go flying back to Firefox.

I hate those phishing ads the AdBlock doesn't block that go full screen. Really hate 'em.

Anyway, if it wain't the fastest in Java, i don't care. It's plenty fast for me: It opens itself *real* fast, it loads pages fast and has a clear interface IMO. Even more than IE9 I'd say.

Cheers!

 

[Tomtompiper]

Browser choice is about personal preferences, people choose the attributes to suit their personal preference, or whoever has given them their last bung. Me I like no Ads and a familiar setup so I choose Firefox, now if somebody at MS wants to make IE work on Linux so I can surf in safety and can push a load of wonga my way I may reconsider my choice, but until then I'll stick with what I consider the best, a personal choice based on what I consider important, stability, addons and ease of use.

 

[natmaster]

Directly from the benchmark site linked to:

JavaScript Performance
(Smaller is better) Browser Seconds IE10
Chrome 10.0.648.205 2.801 4.9
Firefox 4.0.1 0.956 1.7
IE 9.0.8112.16421 64 1.159 2.0
IE 10.0.1000.16394 0.562 1.0
Opera 11.10 1.106 1.9
Safari 5.0.5 (7533.21.10) 0.984 1.7

This puts ie10 as #1, followed by safari barely beating firefox, then opera 11, ie9, followed by the hugely behind chrome. Way to get the ranking wrong. Typical of toms browser reporting.

 

[natmaster]

Also missing from this report: the researchers work for Microsoft.

 

[natmaster]

Disregard the comment about researchers from Microsoft. That paper is merely a citation by douglas crockford.

 

[sykozis]

It makes sense for Firefox to "win" in a comparison of JavaScript code execution, considering many of the developers were part of Netscape....who helped create JavaScript.... But, the time it takes to execute the JavaScript code embedded in websites is short enough that it makes no difference.... Also, these results would be directly impacted by the method used....if the script is contained within the HTM/HTML file, there will be no noticeable difference in execution time. The difference would come from cases where the JavaScript code is in an external file....which has to be opened, read, then executed. So, I take this benchmark as a measure of file access performance more than JavaScript execution performance as the "expert" probably used an external JavaScript file...

 

[Guest]

The comparison is flawed.

Ask yourself this question: why is the only cutting edge, beta engine IE10?

For example, I'm running Chrome 11.0.696.57 Beta. Shouldn't be comparing Alpha to alpha, not alpha to production-stable-release?

 

[IzzyCraft]

[citation][nom]depmann[/nom]The comparison is flawed.Ask yourself this question: why is the only cutting edge, beta engine IE10?For example, I'm running Chrome 11.0.696.57 Beta. Shouldn't be comparing Alpha to alpha, not alpha to production-stable-release?[/citation]
Well it would be to chrome 11 beta if you take into account IE10 been out for 2 weeks the 11 beta was out at a similar time, and i don't see much from ff or opera nothing in the usual channels like opera desktop team's blog. But you claim foul play because microsoft hand a hand in it? But for that to be true your assumption would be that most people aim for malfeasance and thus most people are bad, which by the account of the US justice system based off that a person is more likely to be good and not done a thing and thus innocent until proven guilty is nothing but a bad assumption and we should use the other way around.

 

[hoofhearted]

I use three differrent ones: Firefox, Chrome and IE and I find IE to be the slowest as far as real use goes. Firefox and Chrome seem pretty close, but Chrome does open faster.

 

[subgum]

[citation][nom]johnsmithhatesVLC[/nom]Stop being a blind fanboy. I bet you think Chrome can actually block ads too. Guess what, it can't; blame the extensions api.[/citation]
Ah yes, because if I think that he's wrong I MUST be a "fan boy."
I'm a developer and as such test on Chrome, FF, and IE. It's been my personal experience that Chrome is the fastest among all of these 3 browsers with Java. No benchmarking or anything, but by just feeling it out.

Your adblock API comment has nothing to do with this artice so I have no idea what you're trying to get at with that one.

And this whole "fan boy" accusation that goes on everywhere really needs to die. Makes everyone look stupid.

My opinion is that he's wrong. I could have better worded it, but I still stand by it.

 

[_Cubase_]

[citation][nom]subgum[/nom]No benchmarking or anything, but by just feeling it out.[/citation]

Yes, because all credible reviews, benchmarks and comparisons are based on "feeling it out" without any "benchmarking or anything", and you somehow think this certifies you to simply state that someone else is "wrong"?

Hey Toms, maybe you should take this guys model and write your next review based how it "feels" rather than actual figures? HAHA.

You "feeling" me now boy?

 

[woffle]

Cubase, your opinion is your own, however not one that I agree with.

Alot of times when it comes to the speed of something a benchmark does not agree with what the end user experiences. Just because the js is called run quicker if there is something else in the page load sequence that isnt done correctly this can slow down the overall "feel" to the end user.

The fact is that much like graphics cards (the best direct comparison i can thing of off hand), browsers are coded to work in a specific way and will handle some things better than others. JS is part of the page, not the whole page. Personally I would rather a browser that feels like it loads in 2 seconds than one that technically loads in 2 seconds but feels like 4 when it comes to rendering.

Things come down to experience and having an objective view, otherwise why have anyone write anything, right? You could just read benchmarks all day if you dont care about the conjecture of an opinion, yet not have a real world view of something.

My opinion is not anything in relation to the article just in the way you have expressed yourself. Perhaps it would do you well to think that there is more than just figures that count.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]Random_Article_Commentor[/nom]Random Article Commenter: Anybody who suggests you're browser choice should be influenced javascript speed is either a misguided lemming, or being paid to say so.[/citation]

java script speed is a determenent for me, as a secondary browser. i typically have chrome and firefox up, and will now be getting opera too.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]natmaster[/nom]Also missing from this report: the researchers work for Microsoft.[/citation]
and??? as you can see safari was number one, lol....so what if the researcher works for microsoft, lol

 

[mitch074]

@subgum: if you're a web developer, then you'll know the scripting language used is not 'Java', but 'Javascript' (an implementation of ECMAscript, currently at version 5).

Douglas Crockford is a reference in the Javascript world: he's written reference books on it, probably forgotten more about JS than you'll ever learn (or I for that matter) and his JSlint tool is incredibly useful for removing useless code, ensuring maximum compatibility and increasing reliability before compression.

My own personal tests show that indeed, Chrome is flakey depending on the JS scenario: it can be very fast (typically on Google apps) or very slow (on 3rd-party apps).

Please note that apart from Firefox, JS speed has no bearing on how fast a browser opens (I'm singling out Fx because it uses JS, among others, to draw its own interface).

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]natmaster[/nom]Also missing from this report: the researchers work for Microsoft.[/citation]
Wouldn't be more likely that they work for Apple. Microsoft IE10 and IE9 finished in 3rd and 4th place after all.