Last night I made some serious "soul searching" and deep profiling and I successfully identified the culprit by the aid of time distribution spent for every function call in the module and it actually was even way worse than I had expected because it was an EXTREMELY popular native DOM method.
To add insult to injury, I also threw IE11 into the mix and did some test runs and surprise surprise it fared 2x-3x better than Chrome :).
BTW, these test runs were performed on a very capable machine (released 2014). Just imagine what the numbers would be on challenged and less than optimal configs or mobile/tablet devices. Not really in Chrome's favor.
So, under a real world scenario and real business problem and codebase, FF fared WAY WAY better than Chrome and even IE was ahead of Chrome too.
No, I am not interested in those flawed benchmarks or skewed results peddled by intellectual masturbation pros like you, I only care about real world examples and business cases.
Don't even bother asking about the offending method because I have a no asshole/douche allowed policy in place and it is not going anywhere anytime soon.
A realist here, I'm manipulative only with my foes. My friends and love interests I value them tremendously and I don't resort to such measures when dealing with them.
Are you suggesting that the remarkable disparity in performance was DOM specific?
Strange because I used a very common method appendChild() and I was under the impression that both browsers had optimized their respective inner workings a long time ago to the point that we should not notice such divergence in performance.
I was experimenting a couple of days ago with high duty and extreme DOM nodes crunching and FF's SpiderMoneky blew Chrome's V8 out of the water for 7 - 9 multiples gain in performance measured in time elapsed to complete the operations.
To add insult to injury, I also threw IE11 into the mix and did some test runs and surprise surprise it fared 2x-3x better than Chrome :).
To give you a glimpse into the numbers:
FF Dev 39: ~1000ms IE11: 2000ms - 3000ms Chrome42: 7000ms - 9000ms
BTW, these test runs were performed on a very capable machine (released 2014). Just imagine what the numbers would be on challenged and less than optimal configs or mobile/tablet devices. Not really in Chrome's favor.
So, under a real world scenario and real business problem and codebase, FF fared WAY WAY better than Chrome and even IE was ahead of Chrome too.
No, I am not interested in those flawed benchmarks or skewed results peddled by intellectual masturbation pros like you, I only care about real world examples and business cases.
Don't even bother asking about the offending method because I have a no asshole/douche allowed policy in place and it is not going anywhere anytime soon.