W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: comments on Matrix

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 09:38:11 +1100
Cc: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-id: <CFCC41AE-6EEF-405D-BEC0-0634AB5823B2@apple.com>
To: Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com>

On 20/03/2013, at 3:57 PM, Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com> wrote:

> Do we need any Matrix classes when up coming JavaScript optimization will likely make well written JavaScript libraries faster than these Matrix classes and far more flexible to different needs? 

I talked with our JavaScript team (JavaScriptCore) about the performance implications. They didn't see any issues with the current proposal, and also suggested that while the chaining of operations might produce extra allocations, it's not necessarily a big deal.

They also said that a custom Matrix class would likely be faster than something working on Float32Arrays, since it is a fixed size class which the VM can allocate up front. And for what's proposed here, it would be difficult for an enscriptened library to beat raw performance (and if so, would be something worth addressing in the engine).

I'm not an expert on any of this (which is why I asked the experts), but I think we shouldn't worry about performance too much. Design is another issue.

Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 22:38:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:44 UTC