Nothing to see here. Author uses Octane benchmark where bigger is better, so v8 ~26 beats the "experimental engine".<p><i>Q: What do the scores mean?</i><p><i>A: In a nutshell: bigger is better. Octane measures the time a test takes to complete and then assigns a score that is inversely proportional to the run time (historically, Firefox 2 produced a score of 100 on an old benchmark rig the V8 team used).</i><p><a href="https://developers.google.com/octane/faq" rel="nofollow">https://developers.google.com/octane/faq</a>
How exactly does JXCore manage to beat years worth of optimisation engineering by Google? I'm skeptical, especially since I can imagine an engineering tradeoff between performance and stability. Maybe V8 is slower because they fixed crash bugs caused by overoptimistic code generation. What assurances does anyone have that their slower but working V8 code won't be fast and broken in a new engine?
Seems double-silly. First there's the whole "smaller is better... I mean, whoops!"-ness of the blogpost. Second is the general choice of benchmark: JXcore is supposed to be a multithreaded JS engine, so it seems like you'd want to benchmark its multithreaded performance against V8's single thread perf. on some workload that can take advantage of multiple threads.
Source code protection? I guess this is some form of security by obscurity when distributing to clients? If it's for in-house code, why would you limit it to the set of data covered by this framework rather than proper encryption for your whole project?
Maybe JXcore will come with a new LLVM Javascript Frontend?<p>Looking forward to it.<p><a href="http://jxcore.com/jxcore-llvm-javascript-frontend-b/" rel="nofollow">http://jxcore.com/jxcore-llvm-javascript-frontend-b/</a>