TextEncoder and TextDecoder performance concern around all libraries / runtimes
まだ誰も着手していません。
評価
- 難易度
- 5/5
- 見積もり時間
- 1週間以上
- 初心者へのやさしさ
- 22/100
- issue の種類
- 機能追加
- 明瞭さ
- 説明が足りない
- 活発さ
- 停滞
- 技術スタック
- javascript
- 領域
- api, performance, web-dev
調査の方向性
Start with the linked comment on issue 333 and compare the reported TextEncoder and TextDecoder performance concerns across the runtimes and libraries named in the issue. Determine whether the result should be an implementation investigation or a new Encoding Standard API proposal; done requires a reproducible performance comparison and a clearly scoped outcome.
索引モデルが issue の本文から書いたものです。
説明
What is the issue with the Encoding Standard?
I've been asked to file a new issue after this comment https://github.com/whatwg/encoding/issues/333#issuecomment-2724225478 and here I am doing that:
- no runtime on the server prefers standards API to convert JS UTF-16 based strings into UTF-8 compatible strings, yet our Operating Systems, files, the Web itself, runs over UTF-8 to maximize compatibility with all Programming Languages and avoid misleading, or error prone, conversions all over the place
- no library which goal is to serialize as binary data JS uses TextEncoder or TextDecoder if not just after trying to avoid both by all means because these are extremely slow, via
encodeIntovariants or not, compared to more or less accurate JS only solutions - all JS only solutions are fast enough with laptops plugged in, but overall CPUs degrade 5X+ performance once devices are in battery save mode ... or better, all libraries perform extremely bad out of just JS code and it's not clear why these APIs are so slow compared to NodeJS, Bun or other JS runtime solutions that are not based on these APIs
- if all server runtimes need to avoid these APIs and SharedArrayBuffer + Atomics is used to convert JS references otherwise impossible to convert natively as binary, it's clear to me we're lacking a primitive which only purpose would be to return a buffer out of
String.prototype.toUTF8Buffer()or any other named API which goal is to just do that without all the performance caveats behind the scene - at the same time, it's not clear why every JS solution literally outperform these native APIs so that something might be really off behind these API implementations, as most libraries are based on RFC standards and has been proven to work for years bypassing TextEncoder or TextDecoder usage
As summary, it would be great to understand why these APIs are so slow and why there is no interest in having best performance backed in to transform strings as binary data and decode these.
Use cases:
- Atomics via SharedArrayBuffer where the only language these APIs speak is binary and views of buffers
- cross posting + cross programming language communication
- file handling where all APIs returns
arrayBufferbut that's both async (usually) and yet needs conversion to text too if these are traveling - leader tab patterns used to enable OPFS where data can only travel as binary to be fast enough, avoiding any encoding/decoding all over the place (buffers travel fast)
- serialization where to know the length of a JS string we need all sort of invariants to what
byteLengthcould provide and yet, that would not solve the whole issue: we also need/want that buffer after
Thanks in advance for considering any alternative API that would boost performance or considering investigating how come we need to loop charCodeAt all over the Web to be sure we're either faster than native APIs, which goal supposed to be to simplify that encoding/decoding dance, or needed to compute the resulting length of a JS string, usually before needing that string as buffer anyway 🙏
- 主要言語
- HTML
- スター
- 323
- フォーク
- 94
- 平均マージ
- 21分
- マージ済み PR（30日）
- 2
環境構築
- Dockerfile・Docker Compose ファイルなし
- プルリクエストのテンプレートあり
- コントリビューションガイドを読む
はじめの一歩
- issue を最後まで読み、次にプロジェクトのコントリビューションガイドを読みます。
- 着手することを issue にコメントします — 二人が同じ作業をするのを防げます。
- リポジトリをフォークし、ブランチを切って変更します。
- issue 番号を参照したプルリクエストを送ります。
whatwg/encoding のほかの issue
-
難易度 5/5 1週間以上 初心者へのやさしさ 35/100
-
topic: api
難易度 4/5 3〜5日 初心者へのやさしさ 35/100
-
topic: api
難易度 5/5 1週間以上 初心者へのやさしさ 30/100
-
Add support for [AllowResizable] inputs対応中かも @daxpedda が 224 日前に担当しました。 オープンaddition/proposal topic: api
難易度 5/5 1週間以上 初心者へのやさしさ 25/100
-
addition/proposal needs implementer interest
難易度 5/5 1週間以上 初心者へのやさしさ 25/100
whatwg/encoding の issue をすべて見る
似ている issue
-
bug ready-for-agent
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 73/100
PhyberApex/kuroshiro#1687 ·
メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信
-
Provider test fails on official OpenAI preset: chat probe sends max_tokens, rejected by newer modelsオープン
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 78/100
メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信
-
general_error() logs every 4xx response at ERROR level, including expected 400, 404 and 409 outcomesオープンbug
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 75/100
awslabs/visual-asset-management-system#935 ·
メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信
-
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 62/100
メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信
-
vim.filetype.match() prefixes a URL buffer name with the cwd before passing it to filetype functionsオープン
難易度 2/5 1〜3時間 初心者へのやさしさ 73/100
メンテナーはふだん 1 日以内に返信