You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I benchmarked this port against other transpilers using jQuery and found that it takes an extraordinary ~13 seconds to transpile using closure-compiler-js as opposed to a little over ~1 second with uglifyjs or esprima.
I understand that this port was generated using a Java to JS compiler and looking at jscomp.js it is really not a big surprise as to why this takes so long, there is a lot of redundancy behind the scenes.
However, it pretty much renders this port useless when tranpiling large projects or when using this module in the browser.
If it takes less time to spawn a child process and compile with the native Java compiler then what's the point?
It makes more sense to me to write this module properly from a technical spec than to have something generated and under perform.
I benchmarked this port against other transpilers using jQuery and found that it takes an extraordinary ~13 seconds to transpile using closure-compiler-js as opposed to a little over ~1 second with uglifyjs or esprima.
I understand that this port was generated using a Java to JS compiler and looking at jscomp.js it is really not a big surprise as to why this takes so long, there is a lot of redundancy behind the scenes.
However, it pretty much renders this port useless when tranpiling large projects or when using this module in the browser.
If it takes less time to spawn a child process and compile with the native Java compiler then what's the point?
It makes more sense to me to write this module properly from a technical spec than to have something generated and under perform.