Message from JavaScript discussions

October 2018

— Why by hand?

— 

Arrow functions may be EXACTLY the same, so they (developers) reused the part of normal implementation to arrow, okay. They can't be MORE performant, it's imagination and some measurement errors. SpiderMonkey in FF v40 had 70% degrade on arrow functions, i googled some info about, so they fixed it. Good transpiler will always be ahead of that. Is arrow function super-duper different that bound function? No. So, not a big deal. Just a syntax.

— They ARE more performant in SpiderMonkey at this very moment...

— So obviously they CAN be more performant

— Where?

— ^

— Run it yourself

— I ran

— My machine and version doesnt show it

— Right now im kinda uncertain about components lifecycles, especially in jsx syntax. iife's to bring a state into a pure component, im neither sure if thats really a good idea, nor what proceedure one shoudl apply to trigger a granular re-render....

Message permanent page

— All the chromes are equal, firefox >= 62 runs arrow functions faster

— Hmm.. that may mean, that devs put arrow first and normal last, and this will make their implementation of the engine slower vs competitor chrome🤤 bad debugger, bad performance

Message permanent page