<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Javascript-Hate on Insignificant Bits</title>
    <link>https://bobcopeland.com/blog/tags/javascript-hate/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Javascript-Hate on Insignificant Bits</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:33:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://bobcopeland.com/blog/tags/javascript-hate/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>It&#39;s faster because it&#39;s async!</title>
      <link>https://bobcopeland.com/blog/2013/07/its-faster-because-its-async/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2013 12:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
       <guid isPermaLink="false">http://bobcopeland.com/blog/?p=1952</guid> 
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Some Javascript developers, when presented with an API, think, &amp;ldquo;I know, I&amp;rsquo;ll make it async!&amp;rdquo; Now their users have a giant mess of a state machine implemented with callbacks and recursion, in a GC runtime that doesn&amp;rsquo;t eliminate tail calls, and &lt;em&gt;two orders of magnitude&lt;/em&gt; worse performance. Normally, I wouldn&amp;rsquo;t care, because you get what you ask for when you write something in Javascript, but this time it happened to a project that I occasionally maintain for $work. And so I was sad.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
