On 5/17/2023 at 11:07 AM, rereser said:

// ==UserScript==
// @name Inject findLastIndex Polyfill
// @version 0.0.1
// @match *://*/*
// @run-at document-start
// @grant none
// ==/UserScript==

Similar to Anbima's question: will copying the text of the quote on top of the script proposed by Articfoxie suffice to work on TM?

11 minutes ago, dmiranda said:

will copying the text of the quote on top of the script proposed by Articfoxie suffice to work on TM?

Yep.

Is there a difference in polyfills between 13.5.2036 and 13.5.1030?
Can 2036 do more than 1030?

Which polyfills are important now?
Maybe these can be listed again in one post so that these can be easily inserted into Tampermonkey.

5 minutes ago, Anbima said:

Is there a difference in polyfills between 13.5.2036 and 13.5.1030?

No.

 

6 minutes ago, Anbima said:

Can 2036 do more than 1030?

No, not really.  But the original developers of 1030 define it as "experimental" and do not recommend it for daily use.

 

6 minutes ago, Anbima said:

Which polyfills are important now?

Depends entirely on the web sites that you visit.

NONE of my weekly/daily visited web sites requre ANY of them.

But it's so extremely easy just to install them and with essentially zero impact on performance that the risk-reward is humongous to the upside, have it "ready" for that 1 out of 10,000 web sites that isn't going to work without them.

Only time will tell just how "mainstream" any of these will become.  If they become "mainstream", then that 1 out of 10,000 (purely plucked from the sky) web sites today will turn into 1 out of 100 web sites a few months from now.

1 minute ago, NotHereToPlayGames said:

No, not really.  But the original developers of 1030 define it as "experimental" and do not recommend it for daily use.

 

1030 runs much faster.
Why should this not be used?

I find the two to perform comparable to each other and do not see 1030 as "much faster".

2036 has more processes with the same open tabs and requires more memory.

Processes with 1030:

Processes with 2036:

Edited May 20, 20233 yr by Anbima

My process count is identical when comparing 1030 with 2036.

RAM on 2036 is only 4MB more than 1030 - not worth worrying about.

I show 2036 to be slightly FASTER.

And when it comes to squeezing the turnip, every FRACTION of performance is welcomed so I run 2036.

Higher number equals faster.

Edited May 20, 20233 yr by NotHereToPlayGames

Smaller number equals faster.

Smaller number equals faster.

All I can do is laugh so hard that I'm crying.  Metaphorically speaking.

A little over two years ago, the "web" basically forced me to migrate from NM28 to 360Chrome because I want ONE browser to do ALL of my internet needs.

Two years ago, I could no longer pay my water bill via NM28 and 360Chrome became my ONE browser for ALL of my internet needs.

This month's water bill will not open in 360Chrome but does open in latest NM28 (but I do not own a phone and require Google Voice which does not work in NM28 or St52 or St55).

I guess I have until next month's water bill to see if I can polyfill whatever in Hades my water bill company just rolled out.

It's a vicious and unending circle!

What is the "Spare Renderer" tab in 2036?

1030 has it also.  That is "how" Chrome's multi-process works.

With 2036 I have an intermittent delay when opening a web page (also when opening the settings).
I have tested it several times with the 1030 alternating with the 2036 and it is only with the 2036.

Can anyone confirm this?