←back to thread

269 points aapoalas | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.4s | source

We're building a different kind of JavaScript engine, based on data-oriented design and willingness to try something quite out of left field. This is most concretely visible in our major architectural choices:

1. All data allocated on the JavaScript heap is placed into a type-specific vector. Numbers go into the numbers vector, strings into the strings vector, and so on.

2. All heap references are type-discriminated indexes: A heap number is identified by its discriminant value and the index to which it points to in the numbers vector.

3. Objects are also split up into object kind -specific vectors. Ordinary objects go into one vector, Arrays go into another, DataViews into yet another, and so on.

4. Unordinary objects' heap data does not contain ordinary object data but instead they contain an optional index to the ordinary objects vector.

5. Objects are aggressively split into parts to avoid common use-cases having to reading parts that are known to be unused.

If this sounds interesting, I've written a few blog posts on the internals of Nova over in our blog, you can jump into that here: https://trynova.dev/blog/what-is-the-nova-javascript-engine

Show context
Etheryte ◴[] No.42171237[source]
Architectural choices are interesting to talk about, but I think most people reading this won't have any context to compare against, me included. How does this compare to e.g. the architecture of V8? What benefits do these choices give when compared against other engines? Etc, reading through the list it's easy to nod along, but it's hard to actually have an intuition about whether these are good choices or not.
replies(3): >>42171249 #>>42171285 #>>42171820 #
VPenkov ◴[] No.42171285[source]
They seem to have a blog post on that: https://trynova.dev/blog/why-build-a-js-engine

It reads like an experimental approach because someone decided to will it into existence. That and to see if they can achieve better performance because of the architectural choices.

> Luckily, we do have an idea, a new spin on the ECMAScript specification. The starting point is data-oriented design (...)

> So, when you read a cache line you should aim for the entire cache line to be used. The best data structure in the world, bar none, is the humble vector (...)

> So what we want to explore is then: What sort of an engine do you get when almost everything is a vector or an index into a vector, and data structures are optimised for cache line usage? Join us in finding out (...)

replies(3): >>42171319 #>>42171414 #>>42175089 #
aapoalas ◴[] No.42171319[source]
The impetus for the engine design is indeed, as you say, "someone decided to will it into existence."

A friend of mine who works in the gaming industry told me about the Entity Component System architecture and I thought: Hey, wouldn't that work for a JavaScript engine? So I decided to find out.

Nova itself has already been created at that point and I was part of the project, but it was little more than a README. I then started to push it towards my vision, and the rest is not-quite-history.

replies(2): >>42171643 #>>42183007 #
1. specialist ◴[] No.42183007[source]
I think you're on to something (important). Decomposing structs into separate arrays (heaps) is becoming a thing. eg Rust and others are introducing language features to manually (explicitly) do so. It could be cool if the runtime just handled it.

I stumbled across a new research language with new syntax for just this purpose, to better express iteration and lambdas. IIRC.

Sorry, I was looking for something else (got nerdsniped by u/hinkley's mention of Erlang's "set-theoric types" ), and didn't bookmark it. If I find it again, I'll forward the link.

Maybe someone else here knows what I'm talking about.

replies(1): >>42188356 #
2. aapoalas ◴[] No.42188356[source]
Wait, is there an RFC for Rust to support SOA?