> This was an oversimplification bordering on being misleading. It’s a lighter JS runtime that’s calling native code for rendering controls. The argument still has merit. Just because something in JS doesn’t make it slow or bloated. Interpreted languages will almost always be slower than their native compiled counterparts, but it’s negligble [sic] for these purposes.
Isn't it a full JS runtime? I think by "a lighter JS runtime that's calling native code" you mean it doesn't deal with HTML/CSS rendering, but that's not what JS runtime means. These are separate parts of the browser architecture.
I don't agree it's negligible for this purpose. Core OS functionality should run well on old/cheap machines, and throwing in unnecessary interpreters/JITs for trivial stuff is inconsistent with their recently announced commitment to "faster and more responsive Windows experiences" and "improved memory efficiency".
> This was an oversimplification bordering on being misleading. It’s a lighter JS runtime that’s calling native code for rendering controls. The argument still has merit. Just because something in JS doesn’t make it slow or bloated. Interpreted languages will almost always be slower than their native compiled counterparts, but it’s negligble [sic] for these purposes.
Isn't it a full JS runtime? I think by "a lighter JS runtime that's calling native code" you mean it doesn't deal with HTML/CSS rendering, but that's not what JS runtime means. These are separate parts of the browser architecture.
I don't agree it's negligible for this purpose. Core OS functionality should run well on old/cheap machines, and throwing in unnecessary interpreters/JITs for trivial stuff is inconsistent with their recently announced commitment to "faster and more responsive Windows experiences" and "improved memory efficiency".