[dojo-contributors] Dojo 1.7 Goals: has() and granular dependency lists

Peter Higgins dante at dojotoolkit.org
Wed Mar 16 08:51:14 EDT 2011


On 3/15/11 11:18 PM, Bill Keese wrote:
> I'd suggest just leaving array.js as is.
>
> Although you could have a " config-use-native-array" flag, it's 
> probably not worth the confusion for users, especially since you need 
> to explain how dojo.forEach() etc. would behave differently depending 
> on the browser.
>
> About the webkitMobile build flag, I'm not even sure that anyone is 
> using it, so don't take those code paths too seriously.
>
While it is very likely few people are using it, the reality of it is 
that we've sent natives there for [however long] and no one seems have 
been bitten by the fact they are able to walk over sparse arrays. All 
the major libraries (afaik) don't do sparse arrays unless deferring to 
native, and it seems like either a) no one [as in more than just the no 
ones that use webkitmobile] uses sparse arrays in real life or b) see a.

~phiggins


> 2011/3/16 Kris Zyp <kzyp at dojotoolkit.org <mailto:kzyp at dojotoolkit.org>>
>
>     Interesting. Should we do this?
>     if(has("array-foreach") && has("config-use-native-array")){
>       /* native array methods */
>
>     (where config-use-native-array defaults to false)
>     Thanks,
>     Kris
>
>
>     On 3/15/2011 9:09 AM, Eugene Lazutkin wrote:
>>     If memory serves me correctly, this decision (use our
>>     implementation in
>>     all browsers) was done because of two factors: in almost all browsers
>>     native implementations were *slower* than trivial JavaScript
>>     once, and
>>     because of space considerations --- why ship two implemntations + a
>>     switch between them, if there are no other benefits?
>>
>>     Just ran a test in Chrome 11 on Linux --- native versions 2-3 times
>>     slower on this benchmark: http://www.perfjs.com/#638003
>>
>>     I tried it on FF3.6 --- forEach is twice slower, yet reduce* is
>>     almost
>>     the same.
>>
>>     It appears that the current generation of browsers do not give us
>>     clear
>>     incentive to switch, other than for possible build reduction
>>     purposes.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>     Eugene Lazutkin
>>     http://lazutkin.com/
>>
>>     On 03/15/2011 08:32 AM, Peter Higgins wrote:
>>     > All the array utilities do this in the webkit mobile build (use
>>     natives,
>>     > weird weird pragma at the bottom), but we were never serving native
>>     > iterators as our own even in browsers that support it.
>>
>>     > On 3/15/11 9:13 AM, Kris Zyp wrote:
>>     >> On 3/14/2011 10:24 PM, Bill Keese wrote:
>>     >>> Doesn't your patch break backwards-compatibility?     Note the
>>     >>> comment in all the methods in the current code:
>>     >>>
>>     >>> //This method corresponds to the JavaScript 1.6 Array.indexOf
>>     method,
>>     >>> with one difference: when
>>     >>>
>>     >>> //run over sparse arrays, the Dojo function invokes the
>>     callback for
>>     >>> every index whereas JavaScript
>>     >>>
>>     >>> //1.6's indexOf skips the holes in the sparse array.
>>     >>>
>>     >>>
>>     >>
>>     >> I didn't write any new code, I just switched from the old
>>     build pragma
>>     >> to has() branching. If it is not backwards-compatible, it
>>     hasn't been
>>     >> backwards-compatible for sometime... So it is backwards-compatible
>>     >> with the old backwards-incompatibility ;).
>>     >>
>>     >> Kris
>>     >>
>>     >>
>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>     >> dojo-contributors mailing list
>>     >> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
>>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org>
>>     >> http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>>
>>
>>
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > dojo-contributors mailing list
>>     > dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
>>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org>
>>     > http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>     >
>     _______________________________________________
>
>     > dojo-contributors mailing list
>
>     > dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org>
>
>     >
>     http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     dojo-contributors mailing list
>     dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
>     <mailto:dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org>
>     http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
> http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/dojo-contributors

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.dojotoolkit.org/pipermail/dojo-contributors/attachments/20110316/6766c471/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the dojo-contributors mailing list