"I did not run performance benchmarks on my system because Asm.js does not yet support OS X (which is my primary OS)."
Given the relative percentage of web developers who use OSX (which is certainly non-trivial), wouldn't you think it would have been wise to state that?
But I guess the more interesting question is: did you try it on a system that firefox nightly+asm.js runs on? If so, can you describe that process? Did you try writing some code by hand or try taking a dummy program and run it through emscripten?
Taking a step back, it just seems really strange (and certainly many others, if this involved some other company like microsoft or google) that you would talk about performance without trying it.
There hasn't been any shadow of a doubt that asm.js works -- and it's ok for a blog post to help explain what a piece of technology is about. It's a less-technical post, yes, but if that's what the author wants to write about, so be it.
The better question is if it's the right approach, which is what mraleph has been arguing, and it's a much more appropriate argument.
"I did not run performance benchmarks on my system because Asm.js does not yet support OS X (which is my primary OS)."
Given the relative percentage of web developers who use OSX (which is certainly non-trivial), wouldn't you think it would have been wise to state that?
But I guess the more interesting question is: did you try it on a system that firefox nightly+asm.js runs on? If so, can you describe that process? Did you try writing some code by hand or try taking a dummy program and run it through emscripten?
Taking a step back, it just seems really strange (and certainly many others, if this involved some other company like microsoft or google) that you would talk about performance without trying it.