Do .jsxbin files run faster than .jsx ?

  • 2
  • Question
  • Updated 16 hours ago
ExtendScript Toolkit has a File > Export as Binary command, that generates a .jsxbin file from a .jsx file. Are "binary scripts" faster, or offer any advantage besides "hiding" the source code?
Photo of Daniel Serodio

Daniel Serodio

  • 2 Posts
  • 0 Reply Likes

Posted 7 years ago

  • 2
Photo of Aidan Fraser

Aidan Fraser

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
It's not a "compiled" version of javascript, it's just a mangling of the source, so it should be the same speed to run. Ironically, if anything, there will be a (tiny) delay while the app un-mangles the bin into a form that can be run by the javascript interpreter.
Photo of Jeffrey Tranberry

Jeffrey Tranberry, Sr. Product Manager, Digital Imaging

  • 15339 Posts
  • 2229 Reply Likes
They should run at the same speed.
Photo of Franz Budon

Franz Budon

  • 1 Post
  • 0 Reply Likes
I tested on a real Indesign app with a long to execute case (around 80s). jsxbin format is in the end around 6% slower than the counterpart in this test. Im disappointed, I was expecting some performance benefit for having done that extra step.
(Edited)
Photo of JEA

JEA

  • 316 Posts
  • 187 Reply Likes
.jsxbin is for encrypting the javascript code so others can not easily decompile the source code.  Many commercial javascripts for photoshop use .jsxbin to protect their code.