Former Sun Mobile JIT Engineers Take On Mobile JavaScript/HTML Performance 106
First time accepted submitter digiti writes "In response to Drew Crawford's article about JavaScript performance, Shai Almog wrote a piece providing a different interpretation for the performance costs (summary: it's the DOM not the script). He then gives several examples of where mobile Java performs really well on memory constrained devices. Where do you stand in the debate?"
I blame the DOM too (Score:5, Interesting)
An arbitrary tree of arbitrary objects with arbitrary methods of manipulating them thanks to years of incremental changes that are never properly documented (quick! point to the document showing that a select tag has a value attribute!) and are never deprecated.
Re:I blame the DOM too (Score:4, Informative)
quick! point to the document showing that a select tag has a value attribute!
I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Are you saying that having a value attribute on a select element is something that is simply undocumented but valid?
Or, are you saying that this is a deprecated attribute still found in the wild and there is no doc to explain this?
Certainly invalid attributes are going to add some overhead to the DOM, but I don't think that's necessarily the reason a sluggish UI can be blamed on the DOM. I would imagine that a simple DOM with ten elements, each element with ten attributes would still be faster than a DOM with 100 elements, each with one attribute. Of course, this largely depends on what you're going to be doing with the elements and the attributes, but in the case of simple UI updates to the DOM, the elements are going to change more often than all of the attributes. You might update a couple attributes here and there, but the rest of the attributes are probably left as they were since they are likely unrelated to whatever UI update you are performing.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe just most webpages are ridiculously bloated.
Re: (Score:3)
How about video and flashy graphics that add no information? Or very complex layouts that get text exactly the way the designer intended and which look horrible on any screen not the target size?
By bloat I mean clutter, not speed.
Re:I blame the DOM too (Score:4)
But what does that have to do with performance? How would documenting the value attribute of the select tag make things run faster?
Re: (Score:2)
I think what he's saying is that the DOM is poorly designed and that's partly because of and partly contributes to poor documentation.
The net result is a clusterfuck with many other clusterfucks built on top of it and we all know that clusterfucks stacked on clusterfucks are especially slow. Or something.
No seriously, I think there's some merit in the point, that if it's not well designed and everyone and anyone has just thrown their own bits and pieces in and much of it isn't well documented then it become
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right, but without accurate documentation, how do we know :) ?
Re:I blame the DOM too (Score:5, Funny)
Here it is. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. The old trade-off between:
< -- fast & rigid - - - slow & features/flexibility -- >
Re: (Score:2)
It's in HTML [whatwg.org].
This very much is one of the major achievements of HTML5: specifying what is interoperable and required to avoid breaking the web, but historically undefined. One couldn't practically launch a web browser without reverse-engineering others.
Garbage Collection is not O(GC)=0 (Score:3, Informative)
I think Drew's article wasn't that performance had to suffer, it was that garbage collection isn't free. It has to take place, though, so it's not an O(GC)=0 component. If garbage collection takes place in a lot of memory, but not -enough- memory, it takes a very long time, in real time. Depending heavily on the application, it may be very visible at the UI level.
Programmers intent on using all of the resources available, and performing intensive tasks, should think about means other than garbage collection.
Re: (Score:3)
Properly written Android apps are pretty snappy and they're written in Java.
Granted they run on a different kind of virtual machine but overall it's still pretty similar to the Java runtime.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you hadn't noticed, people use a certain technology because it works to solve their problem. Marketing can help spur this but hardly determines the success of any technology. It is adopted/purchased/used because it works and is needed.
Bloodletting was used from 500 BC to 1800 AC. It didn't work, it was not needed, and did not solve any problems. "Marketing" was the sole factor in the success of bloodletting. This is only one of thousands, if not millions, of examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Garbage Collection is not O(GC)=0 (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not the only issue with his statements about garbage collection.
Drew made an argument that garbage collection on mobile performs poorly due to memory constraints on the platform. Almog countered by pointing out that Drew used a desktop garbage collector rather than a mobile garbage collector, which is important, since mobile garbage collectors are more aggressive at cleaning up stuff like unused paths from JIT, meaning that they make better use of their available memory. Almog was quick to note that being more aggressive also means that the garbage collector performs worse than its desktop counterpart.
Stop and re-read that last sentence, because if I'm understanding this correctly, Almog is basically making the argument that we can avoid the memory concerns Drew brought up -- concerns which were only brought up to explain why there are performance issues -- by using a garbage collector that performs worse.
It's possible, I suppose, that the performance hit from being more aggressive is less severe than the performance hit from running up against the limitations of memory more often, but if that's the case, Almog really should have said so, since right now it sounds like he's completely undermining his own point.
Re: (Score:2)
The original claim is that performance is worse by orders of magnitude in a memory constrained environments. It doesn't sound like the mobile optimized GC is orders of magnitude worse than a desktop optimized GC, so in a memory constrained environment the mobile GC would perform better than the desktop GC.
Of course, the author doesn't provide any numbers, so all we have to go by are his expertise and that his arguments are reasonable. Further research will be necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really see what's surprising about all that. The mobile GC does more to prevent itself hitting memory constraints, doing more is always going to cost more than doing less so of course the mobile GC will perform worse than the desktop GC.
But I don't think he's saying it performs worse than the desktop one would when it hits memory constraints of the device and that's really the key.
Optimisation is often about the trade-off between between memory/storage and processing. If memory/storage/bandwidth is
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is not with raw amortized performance, in any case. It's about responsiveness, which is basically performance at any particular point in time. If said point in time happens to be during a GC cycle, then your latency will be abysmal. Unfortunately, it's very hard if not impossible to ensure that a GC cycle does not occur at the point where latency is critical, especially in a language like JS which gives absolutely no guarantees about what may trigger a GC (or even a memory allocation).
Re: (Score:2)
This debate is as old as the hills. I'll just point out that it's not so much that GC is terrible, so much as it's indelibly associated with managed languages that either are Java or use very Java-inspired designs (like C#) in which objects and heap allocation is treated as being nearly free.
To prove my point, I cite Unreal Engine, a serious piece of code with ve
Re: (Score:2)
The core issue is that GC vs no GC is a false dichotomy. You can't get away without GC, the question is whether you use a general-purpose algorithm, like tracing or reference counting with cycle detection, or a special-purpose design. This is especially true on mobile: if a desktop application leaks memory then it will take a while to fill up swap, but it might not be noticed. Apple provides a very coarse-grained automatic GC for iOS: applications notify the OS that they have no unsaved data and then can
Re: (Score:2)
I think that a more convincing argument is that memory is just one of many scarce resources, and GC only helps you with memory and not everything else. For the rest of it, we still haven't come up with anything better than deterministic finalization (manual or RAII). And once you're forced to use it for everything else, why wouldn't you also use it for memory, especially if it gives you a better memory profile?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the 1/99 is not a realistic proportion. The problem with resource management in the context of OO design is that you tend to aggregate data (objects owned by other objects). When that happens, as soon as you've got one owned object that needs to release a non-memory resource, you need to use deterministic disposal for the entire ownership tree all the way to the top.
This also makes it very unpredictable to figure out what needs deterministic releases from the perspective of your API clients, because
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To prove my point, I cite Unreal Engine, a serious piece of code with very tight performance constraints. It's capable of hitting high, smooth frame rates, and it uses a garbage collected heap for the core game state (lots of objects with lots of pointers between them).
Thing is, no-one is trying to do animations in UnrealScript - it's there to script relatively high-level object interactions. All the rendering code and such is implemented in C++, and at that point it is in full control of memory allocation (i.e. it won't get suddenly interrupted by a GC deciding to walk the object graph in a middle of a drawing routine).
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No rebuttal (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just blabberfastebasted about the summary.
first it goes on about javascript and then about mobile java performing really well on some devices. .jar size limit, earlier than that 64kbytes was pretty common) on machines with ~300-400kbytes of ram available for you.. and gc worked just fine, so long as you didn't abuse String or do shit like that - but that's a bit easier to code for in java than in javascript imho(reusing objects etc).
j2me - commonly known as mobile java, being something entirely different from javascript.. and j2me did pretty well. you could do wolfenstein clones in 128kbytes(was a common
dom though.. of course, it's ridiculous to use for high responsive stuff, while javascript itself can run pretty nicely, lacking real threads certainly doesn't help etc of course.. but it's pretty obvious how you can do things with canvas that would bog the dom renderer.
the article is about how javascript on mobile should be doable ok because j2me worked remarkably well? since j2me did work remarkably well on the lower level(really, it did). what did not work out was their api jsr process for j2me which zombied the whole platform and made almost all extensions useless or half useless - had they not fucked it up like that we would not have needed android.
funny thing about j2me is that most of the mobile stuff I have coded over last 10 years is such that you cannot go to a shop now and buy a device that would run them - except for the j2me code, I could still buy a cheapo nokia and run them.
The article didn't say that (Score:2)
It says that JavaScript is inherently slow because of DOM. It says that this should not be applied as a sweeping generalization to all managed languages e.g. Java. Then it gives examples including mobile Java performance where small heap devices work just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
you could do wolfenstein clones in 128kbytes(was a common .jar size limit, earlier than that 64kbytes was pretty common) on machines with ~300-400kbytes of ram available for you.. and gc worked just fine, so long as you didn't abuse String or do shit like that
A typical J2ME game from that era preallocated a bunch of arrays, and used those arrays to store all game data, since actual objects were so expensive (both raw-size-wise and GC-cost-wise). So GC basically "worked just fine" if it had nothing much to work with, otherwise it didn't and your game crashed on half the phones out there with OOM. The resulting language subset, while technically still Java, was more akin to C without pointers. Which is to say, it was messed up.
I agree. (Score:2)
This whole conversation should have been retitled "Why web apps are slow on mobile", and not about JavaScript at all.
The comparison between Objective C and Java is totally ridiculous and beside the point; it's the only thing which ties this article to actual mobile Apps instead of web apps, and fails to address the original articles comments on JavaScript.
In principle, Objective C the language can be used for dynamic binding; in practice, the Objective C runtime, as represented in crt1.o, and in the dyld an
Re: (Score:2)
In principle, Objective C the language can be used for dynamic binding; in practice, the Objective C runtime, as represented in crt1.o, and in the dyld and later dyle dynamic linkers, it can't be. This was an intentional decision by Apple to prevent a dynamic binding override from changing aspects of the UI, and to prevent malicious code being injected into your program - this is a position Apple strengthened by adding code signing.
I have to wonder what you're talking about here. First of all, the Objective-C runtime is not in crt1.o. This contains some symbols that allow dyld to find things in the executable. The Objective-C runtime is in libobjc.dyld. Every message send (method invocation) in Objective-C goes via one of the objc_msgSend() family of functions and these all do late binding. You can define a category on a system class and override methods, or you can use method swizzling via explicit APIs such as class_replaceMeth
Re:No rebuttal (Score:5, Interesting)
While this post is a valuable addition to Drew's analysis, I feel it's not really a rebutal at all.
Yes, JavaScript is slow for the reasons Drew mentioned and yes, the DOM is a nightmare to optimize for responsive UIs. They're both right.
The key issue here is that these web technologies are being shoehorned into areas they were never designed for. From Document Object Model being used for Applications to the lightweight scripting language, JavaScript, being used for heavy weight programming of course the end result is going to be a poor mobile experience.
If W3C and WHATWG seriously want to compete with Android and iOS Apps, they should consider throwing out the DOM and CSS standards and starting over. JavaScript can be fixed, but DOM/CSS are so technically flawed to the core, the sooner they're depreciated, the sooner the web has a real chance as being a generic platform for applications.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.codenameone.com/3/post/2013/07/why-mobile-web-is-slow.html [codenameone.com]
Perceived Performance (Score:4, Insightful)
I dislike the separation of 'Perceived' vs 'Actual' performance. If I perceive it to be slow, it's slow. This reminds of of the Firefox devs that spent years saying how if an add-on makes their browser a memory hog and a slowpoke, it's not their problem because their performance is fine.
Devs.. If it's slow, it's slow. Call it perceived, call it actual, call it the Pope for all I care. It's a Slow Pope.
Throughput, latency, and latency hiding (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps it's a difference between throughput and latency. Nine moms can make nine babies in nine months, offering nine times the throughput of one mom, but each baby still takes nine months from conception to completion. Users tend to notice latency more than throughput unless an operation already takes long enough to need a progress bar. Some algorithms have a tradeoff between throughput and latency, which need fine tuning to make things feel fast enough.
There are also a few ways to psychologically hide latency even if you can't eliminate it. The "door opening" transition screen in Resident Evil is one example, hiding a load from disc, as are some of the transitions used by online photo albums to slowly open a viewer window while the photo downloads.
Re:Throughput, latency, and latency hiding (Score:4, Funny)
Or you sit there like:
"Stupid animation just show me the content."
Re: (Score:2)
I've appreciated game loading screens that show me my regularly-adjusted variables (weapon choice, health status), the next story segment in an adventure game, or even a static graphic of something I may encounter. My favorite loading screen is the last level's stats. For "business UIs", I'd go for a "tips & tricks" entry.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the article says (Score:1)
The separation is useful to understand where the optimization is necessary. JavaScript could be made less painful if it didn't have DOM manipulation to contend with obviously that's not very practical.
Data vs Hand-waving (Score:5, Insightful)
Crawford brought in lots of data on real-world performance. (e.g. http://sealedabstract.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-14-at-10.15.29-PM.png [sealedabstract.com])
Almog's rebuttal has a lot of claims with no actual evidence. Nothing is measured; everything he says is based on how he thinks things should in theory work. But the "sufficiently smart GC" is as big a joke as the "sufficiently smart compiler", and he even says "while some of these allocation patterns were discussed by teams when I was at Sun I don't know if these were actually implemented".
Also:
I'm a professional game programmer, and I'm laughing at this. If you're making Space Invaders, and there's a fixed board and a fixed number of invaders, that statement is true. If you're making a game for this decade, with meaningful AI, an open world that's continuously streamed in and out of memory, and dynamic, emergent, or player-driven events, that's just silly. For Mr. Almog to even say that shows how much he doesn't know about the subject.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not a rebuttle, in fact he didn't refute any claim other than the GC article. Read the comments where game programming is also discussed.
I didn't post a rebuttal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI stack allocation (the optimisation you refer to) is implemented in the JVM for some time already. It is capable of eliminating large numbers of allocations entirely on hot paths [stefankrause.net]. Of course, there is a lot of memory overhead to all of this - the JVM has to do an escape analysis and it has to keep around bookkeeping data to let it unoptimize things.
For some reason they call this optimisation scalar replacement. I'm not sure why. In theory this can help close the gap a lot, because a big part of the reason
Re: (Score:1)
Memory pools and stack allocation are not the same thing. Memory pools contain many same-sized buffers of memory. Stack-allocation puts data on the stack. Usually those are mutually exclusive.
But is it in any mobile VM? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe Dalvik does any kind of escape analysis. It might be something they could put into dexopt and do ahead of time (at install time not runtime).
Re: (Score:2)
"Can't we just have a language that gives us both and stop shoving one or the other down our throats? As in, the language has a built-in keyword/feature that allows one to dynamically bind function/program/thread/whatever-level to your memory arena (GC or non-GC) of choice?"
Doesn't .NET's CLR do exactly that with C#/C++ and the ability to jump out to unmanaged code?
Alternatively if you prefer unmanaged by default you can just implement a garbage collector in C++ and use it when you need to, avoid it when yo
Re: (Score:3)
I'm courious. Drew said two things about GC:
He didn't say GC always introduces huge latencies, probably because given an incremental GC and enough memory it doesn't. So which of the two assertions are you disagreeing with?
Or to put is another way,
Re: (Score:2)
If you use a GC you need to program with that in mind and design the times where GC occurs (level loading).
Are you saying that GC should only run during level loading (IIRC, this was actually done in UT 2003)?
If so, then this would require the language/runtime in question to give programmer explicit control over GC (at least to the extent of temporarily disabling it). Which is certainly doable in theory, but I'm not aware of any JS runtime that exposes such a thing to the JS code that runs on top of it.
Re: (Score:2)
with some j2me phones there was a trick to run the gc often enough by calling system.gc(), if you did it every 20-50 usual sprite objects(which had like 20 bytes of data attached per object) it never became a problem and a problem would have been noticing a jerk in animation, scrolling or whatever. though even then you would mostly try to reuse objects. memory was tight on those early devices, but remarkably the garbage collector didn't often become a problem.
I wouldn't trust sun guys to know shit about gam
Re: (Score:1)
Most j2me devices didn't use code from Sun.
Re: (Score:2)
And as another professional game programmer I disagree: Good Luck tracking down memory fragmentation.
Real game programmers never call malloc / new from inside the main game loop. They should be allocating from memory pools / heaps. What do you mean you don't have a memory budget for ALL objects, effects, and events ??
Re: (Score:2)
I too am a game developer... no, not professional as you are, but I've written almost a dozen games on a number of platforms over nearly 20 years, sold most of them and even had two nominated for some awards years ago. I won't put myself on the same level as you, but I do have some relevant experience.
I would agree if you said the "never" statement is hyperbole... but you wouldn't argue the underlying gist of it, would you? Certainly it's true that a game programmer will seek to MINIMIZE object allocation
Re: (Score:2)
I'm with you, and I think a lot of what is said boils down to trying to paint scenarios in black and white. The word "allocation" really doesn't mean anything until one specifies how and what is allocated. An allocation can come from a recycling allocator, slab allocator, or just plain old unoptimized malloc(). To say game programmers never alloc during "game level execution" (whatever that means) is just a gross facepalm statement. But it's certainly common for game developers to develop allocators well op
Re: (Score:1)
If they care about performance why not use assembly?
FTFY
Looking at the generated assembly code (Score:3, Informative)
If they care about performance why not use assembly?
Some people do (in a sense) use assembly when they use C. If a particular inner loop is running too slowly, an expert programmer might look at the code that the compiler generates to see what's going wrong. For example, an inefficient translation of C to assembly language might point to needing const or restrict qualifiers to allow the compiler to make certain optimizations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
1) You need 100 times more time to program a certain program if you do it in assembly
2) You need X times the time if you want it running on X platforms (can even be the same processor)
A long known fact in programming is: your programmers productivity in terms of lines of code per day is FIXED. REGARDLESS of language.
That simply means a programmer who is able to "correctly" write 25 - 50 lines of Java per day will also only write like 25 - 50 lines assembly per day.
This is the main reason why we migrated fro
Re:friggen dummies... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're wrong. But not in the way you think. The ability to write abstractions, and an obsession with design patterns, often results in needless abstraction and a loss of focus.
Libraries like C++ STL and Java Collections only make this worse. Why? Because your application is basically one giant data structure. I forgot whether it was Dennis Ritchie, or Ken Thompson, or whomever, but it was once that said good programming is about implementing the correct data structures. Note that this doesn't mean reusing generic data structures; it means drawing upon the universe of conceptual data structures to craft a narrowly focus data structure and algorithm that fits your problem.
If you start out with generic data structures, then you end up working backwards. You have lots of boilerplate code just to use those generic data structures, which you then aggregate and glue together in the same way you would have done from scratch, but with far less code. Programming is not about splicing hash tables together with trees ad hoc. This is a ridiculously reductive perspective on what is programming and how good programs are written.
This is why, almost without fail, real-world applications developed in high-level languages tend to have ridiculously high source line counts. People get carried away with abstraction, including the language implementors with their plethora of generic data structure libraries.
IME, C is *the* sweet spot, if you had to pick a single language. However, you can do better by mixing and matching different languages, especially where they offer unique characteristics--functions as first-class objects + real closures (i.e. not C++ lambdas), coroutines, exceptional optimizing support (e.g. Fortran for iterative numerical algorithms), and functional language characteristics which make is easier to express some kinds of data structures and algorithms. This is why I stay away from C++; it's too much of a pain to mix C++ with various other languages, where almost every language in existence has strong C support.
If people spent as much time maintaing proficiency in different languages instead of trying to do everything in a single language (and grappling with the inevitably cognitive dissonance when defending their choices on web forums), then the world would be a far more efficienct and less bug-prone place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it was once that said good programming is about implementing the correct data structures. Note that this doesn't mean reusing generic data structures; it means drawing upon the universe of conceptual data structures to craft a narrowly focus data structure and algorithm that fits your problem.
And yet the domain of problems that most programs out there deal with is so ridiculously small that, in practice, you're far better off just implementing the common data structures once in the standard library and reusing them. Which is precisely why everyone does just that.
This is why, almost without fail, real-world applications developed in high-level languages tend to have ridiculously high source line counts.
No, that's usually because real-world applications developed in high-level languages are far more complex (in terms of use cases they cover and code paths they necessarily need) than real-world applications developed in low-level languag
Re: (Score:2)
If they care about performance, why not design custom ASICs?
FTFY
You don't need a study when you have the devices (Score:1)
The article mostly agrees with what Drew said with very few exceptions. The article points at Asha devices (and other devices) that have very small amounts of memory (2mb) and yet perform really well with a GC (and a slow CPU).
The GC study pointed in the Drew article was a desktop study taken out of context.
My guarantee (Score:3)
I guarantee Javascript will perform much better once we get to 16 cores and 3.6Ghz on the standard mobile device.
Re:My guarantee (Score:5, Funny)
For the 3 seconds before your battery runs out.
Re: (Score:1)
...or explodes and kills you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And not until Servo (next gen Firefox rewritten in Rust [mozilla.org]) is out; around version 100.
Re: JIT JS / DOM (Score:2)
Because DOM *also* re-composes constantly. I saw a Javascript app once that I sincerely *hope* was a joke. It literally tried to emulate a bitmap (pre-Canvas) by fetching a 1x1 cgi-generated PNG image for each unique RGB color used & assembling them mosaic-style into what must have been a 200 megabyte DOM just to draw a 640x480 bitmap pixel by pixel using absolute positioning. It actually *crashed* Firefox, and choked IE 8 for almost 20 seconds (especially the first row, and the last hundred or so rows)
Slashdot mobile (Score:2)
I find it very amusing that we are having this conversation on a website that just deployed the slowest suckiest mobile website I have ever seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you get an infinite comment loop?
On Android, if I click on a link in an e-mail to a response to a comment of mine it takes me to the Slashdot mobile site with the parent of my comment.
Scrolling down I get to my comment, then the reply, then my comment again, then the reply again, ad infinitum (or ad crash really).
Re: (Score:2)
Do you get an infinite comment loop?
On Android, if I click on a link in an e-mail to a response to a comment of mine it takes me to the Slashdot mobile site with the parent of my comment.
Scrolling down I get to my comment, then the reply, then my comment again, then the reply again, ad infinitum (or ad crash really).
I do not event get to the comments. The frontpage takes forever to load and cannot be scrolled.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I use, but you have to admit using an interface dating back to the 90s it's ridiculous.
Here is a good question (Score:1)
Do we want them too?
Java client's are not notoriously strong in the performance department, period. I mean this is why my Blu-ray player sucks as a Netflix client because its Java based. Also no popular "smartphone" created in the last 6 years uses Java as a front end so the reason while mobile devices improved in performance is because those companies avoided using Java in the first place.
Sure, maybe some throwback clamshell feature phone might run Java and perform well, but you are hardly playing Angry
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How close is this model to what Python does (which is also refcounting + an occasionally running cycle breaker)?
Re: (Score:2)
WAIT ONE SECOND! (Score:2)
Apps seem to launch instantly since they have hardcoded splash images
What? iOS-Apps are made to lie regarding their startup-performance? That's golden. 10/10.
The nice thing about being competent... (Score:1)
is that you can still write a phonegap app that works on damn near anything you want it to in the time it takes the average Java team to tie their shoes and 95% of the time it's not going to perform adequately, it's going to perform better than what they tried to do in the native language. We can talk benchmarks until we're blue in the face, but in six years of web dev I've seen a lot of Java code bases and not one was competent. Modern JS JITs kick ass. Modern Java (and I'd argue C# as well) devs at the me
Re: (Score:1)