By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,639 Members | 2,262 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,639 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Typical size of Javascript interpreter

P: n/a
me
The subject line says it all really.

Any figures for the size of a typical JS interpreter?
Feb 5 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
8 Replies


P: n/a
VK

me wrote:
The subject line says it all really.

Any figures for the size of a typical JS interpreter?


600Kb - 800Kb (rough figure between Microsoft JScript 5.6 and Mozilla
JavaScript 1.6)

May I ask why?

Feb 5 '06 #2

P: n/a
me:
The subject line says it all really.
Any figures for the size of a typical JS interpreter?


20K should be enough.
But if you include JIT, DOM, Liveconnect and other libs, you probably go
over 100K.
Check Rhino.

--
http://www.milliondollarscreenshot.com/
Feb 5 '06 #3

P: n/a
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:02:29 -0800, VK wrote:

me wrote:
The subject line says it all really.

Any figures for the size of a typical JS interpreter?


600Kb - 800Kb (rough figure between Microsoft JScript 5.6 and Mozilla
JavaScript 1.6)

May I ask why?


You may :)

I'm in an ongoing discussion as to the relative strengths and weaknesses
of JS/C# as development languages. It's quite difficult for some people to
follow the discussion concerning the *language* only, without becoming
distracted by the size and scope of libraries (or the available framework)
for each.

It's not a simple matter to compare like for like directly; both need
some kind of context in which to execute before they are of any use
whatsoever. All the same, I think JS punches *well* above its weight.
Feb 5 '06 #4

P: n/a
me wrote:
The subject line says it all really.

Any figures for the size of a typical JS interpreter?

5 ft 9 ins, 170 lbs.
Mick
Feb 5 '06 #5

P: n/a
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:39:12 +0000, mick white wrote:
me wrote:
The subject line says it all really.

Any figures for the size of a typical JS interpreter?

5 ft 9 ins, 170 lbs.
Mick


LOL, a suitable answer to a (my) preposterously vague question.

Feb 5 '06 #6

P: n/a
Sean Inglis wrote:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 11:02:29 -0800, VK wrote:

me wrote:
The subject line says it all really.

Any figures for the size of a typical JS interpreter?


600Kb - 800Kb (rough figure between Microsoft JScript 5.6 and Mozilla
JavaScript 1.6)

May I ask why?

You may :)

I'm in an ongoing discussion as to the relative strengths and weaknesses
of JS/C# as development languages. It's quite difficult for some people to
follow the discussion concerning the *language* only, without becoming
distracted by the size and scope of libraries (or the available framework)
for each.

It's not a simple matter to compare like for like directly; both need
some kind of context in which to execute before they are of any use
whatsoever.


Yes. The extent to which a JS interpreter can leverage off the OS may
be interesting but likely has zero relevance to the size, speed or
capability of the interpreter.

There is also the DOM to consider, which is the useful part of
JavaScript from a web client perspective. DOM implementations differ
widely and have a significant impact on the perceived speed of scripting.

In various tests I've discovered that Firefox can do some things
significantly faster than IE but for other things the boot is on the
other foot. You can't generalise about JavaScript performance since it
runs on so many different platforms and there are so many different
implementations and variables in the mix (DOM is just one).
[...]
--
Rob
Feb 6 '06 #7

P: n/a
JRS: In article <pa****************************@mememe.com>, dated Sun,
5 Feb 2006 17:21:56 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, me
<me@mememe.com> posted :
The subject line says it all really.


Read the newsgroup FAQ, in particular section 2, in particular
subsection 3, in particular sentence 2.

It's naive to assume that all newsreaders behave like the ones that you
know about.

--
John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ??*@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.
Feb 6 '06 #8

P: n/a
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 15:29:34 +0000, Dr John Stockton wrote:
JRS: In article <pa****************************@mememe.com>, dated Sun,
5 Feb 2006 17:21:56 remote, seen in news:comp.lang.javascript, me
<me@mememe.com> posted :
The subject line says it all really.


Read the newsgroup FAQ, in particular section 2, in particular
subsection 3, in particular sentence 2.

It's naive to assume that all newsreaders behave like the ones that you
know about.


Fair comment, my bad.

Feb 6 '06 #9

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.