Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Mozilla Software News

Firefox 9 Released, JavaScript Performance Greatly Improved 330

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the and-they-say-functional-programming-is-useless dept.
MrSeb writes "Firefox 9 is now available — but unlike its previous rapid release forebears where not a lot changed, a huge feature has landed with the new version: the JavaScript engine now has type inference enabled. This simple switch has resulted in a 20-30% JS execution speed increase (PDF), putting JaegerMonkey back in line with Chrome's V8 engine, and even pulling ahead in some cases. If you switched away from Firefox to IE or Chrome for improved JS performance, now is probably the time to give Firefox another shot."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 9 Released, JavaScript Performance Greatly Improved

Comments Filter:
  • by ByOhTek (1181381) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:29AM (#38432564) Journal

    Agreed.

    Actually, I still use an older version of Firefox. The "MeTo ChromeAlike" interface of the newer versions annoys the hell out of me. It's still faster than any version of IE I can use with current rules by my employer. Never cared for the Opera or Chrome interfaces, and I don't trust Chrome for security...

    So, maybe it isn't that I stopped using Firefox, so much as that I haven't bothered upgrading. Firefox 4+ versions have been kindof like Windows ME or Vista, IMO.

  • by somersault (912633) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @07:40AM (#38432614) Homepage Journal

    So you don't trust the security of a browser that's actively having its bugs fixed, but you're not upgrading the browser you have - a browser for which there must be known exploits?

  • by revealingheart (1213834) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @08:02AM (#38432726)

    I don't think it's as bad as you make out. I get the impression that version numbers were to be depreceated and replaced with the terms Beta; Aurora and Nightly. Features would be mentioned as landing on Nightly/Aurora, appearing in users' browsers in so many weeks time. Releases themselves (every 6 weeks) aren't news in themselves. If Firefox developers communicate this clearly to reporters, then perhaps perceptions will change.

    If users would still benefit from version numbers (e.g. for tech support), then I have a suggestion to make:

    Next year, Firefox will be releasing version 12. On that version, there's the option of transitioning to a date-based system, with major versions following the year, and minor versions being incremented every 6 weeks. After version 11, the 1st release with this format would be 12.1; the 2nd release, 12.2; and so on. Here's how it looks like in practice:

    * 10.0 January 31, 2012
    * 11.0 March 13, 2012
    * 12.1 April 24, 2012
    * 12.2 June 5, 2012
    * 12.3 July 17, 2012
    * 12.4 August 28, 2012
    * 12.5 October 9, 2012
    * 12.6 November 20, 2012
    * 13.1 January 1, 2013

    Switching to a date-based system has the advantage that users will know what the current version is without having to report it, as the year corresponds to the version. Firefox in 2012 would be referred to as version 12. Reporters would focus on new and upcoming features in Firefox primarily, so that stories have a talking point and posters' comments are pertinent, primarily focused on features and improvements.

    An example of an open source group who uses a similar format is Ubuntu (who base the version on the year, and the minor version on a 6 month schedule). Versions matter with this format; but there's still a sense of progression. We know what the version will be in 3 years time - even if we don't know what the features will be. Now try to imagine what Firefox's version would be with the new system, compared with the old one.

    Consider that this is an issue that would involve a minor change; would benefit users and reporters (reducing confusion); and improve the quality of comments (on Firefox itself), then I think that Firefox developers will be pleasantly surprised with the results.

    If they do want to focus more on development than on numbers, they would benefit by switching to a date system. I hope that some of the Firefox developers read this, as the value of changing merits the effort involved.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @08:39AM (#38432960)

    I don't really get all these extension complaints. Not once since FF4 have I had an extension fail on update, that I'm aware.
    More importantly, some of the extensions I use have absolutely no acceptable substitute in chrome (never mind other browsers), leaving me completely baffled as to why people change just because FF changes their version number at a different pace (though I agree that it is a silly and pointless move).

  • by Billly Gates (198444) on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @04:16PM (#38439208) Journal

    Come on moderators this is not flamebait.

    Chrome does not follow the RFC standards on TCP/IP so it can have faster loading time. This can wreck havoc on some poorly configured routers, proxies, and SPDY requests with firewalls as well. IE 9 has some of the same issues but not as much as Chrome as they are imitating the same tricks with fast response and loads aka packet storm. Many corporations want to stay with IE 8 for these reasons.

    Every browser has its strengths and weaknesses. I will say all IE and Chrome are improving nicely to compete agaisnt Firefox and it looks like we can finally adopt standards and stop sticking with 1 browser for 7 years like we did with IE 6. That is a good thing.

    I have a few issues with Chrome myself as I found it crashes often with Flash when I watch movies online or listen to music on youtube. Firefox is HUGE and buggy, and IE lacks the addons and is a little behind with HTML 5 support. So there I bashed all of them

Do not underestimate the value of print statements for debugging.

Working...