Pomoc pśepytaś

Glědajśo se wobšudy pomocy. Njenapominajomy was nigda, telefonowy numer zawołaś, SMS pósłaś abo wósobinske informacije pśeraźiś. Pšosym dajśo suspektnu aktiwitu z pomocu nastajenja „Znjewužywanje k wěsći daś“ k wěsći.

Dalšne informacije

parseInt() in Firefox significantly slower than Chrome's

more options

Hello,

I have been doing some testing and have found the parseInt() javascript function is significantly slower in Firefox in comparison to Chrome. This is an issue as I am for looping strings and using this function to convert them to integers. In Chrome, it performs well, however in Firefox the page freezes for several seconds.

Firefox: 0.0649999999998272ms Chrome: 0.005000000004656613ms

JS Fiddle: https://jsfiddle.net/2d1pjLu5/

Cheers, Jesse

Hello, I have been doing some testing and have found the parseInt() javascript function is significantly slower in Firefox in comparison to Chrome. This is an issue as I am for looping strings and using this function to convert them to integers. In Chrome, it performs well, however in Firefox the page freezes for several seconds. Firefox: 0.0649999999998272ms Chrome: 0.005000000004656613ms JS Fiddle: https://jsfiddle.net/2d1pjLu5/ Cheers, Jesse

Wšykne wótegrona (1)

more options

Hi Jesse, this topic might be more appropriate for another forum:

https://discourse.mozilla.org/c/firefox-development

But out of curiosity... I modified the last line of the script so that timings accumulate and you can compare multiple runs:

https://jsfiddle.net/2d1pjLu5/1/

When I click Test 10 times, Firefox 57 gives me two initial outliers before it settles down (range of 0.010 to 0.055) (I didn't have an issue with the page freezing):

Took 0.05500000000029104ms Took 0.03999999999996362ms Took 0.015000000000327418ms Took 0.020000000000436557ms Took 0.014999999999417923ms Took 0.010000000000218279ms Took 0.010000000000218279ms Took 0.014999999999417923ms Took 0.015000000001236913ms Took 0.014999999999417923ms

Chrome 63 had a tighter range (0.010 to 0.025):

Took 0.020000000000436557ms Took 0.010000000000218279ms Took 0.014999999999417923ms Took 0.015000000000327418ms Took 0.019999999998617568ms Took 0.02500000000145519ms Took 0.024999999999636202ms Took 0.020000000000436557ms Took 0.019999999998617568ms Took 0.020000000000436557ms

I have to wonder whether the method of measurement might also be a factor, and how background processes in the browser come into play.

Of course, each subsequent set of 10 runs is different...