问题
Not enough that JavaScript isn't multithreaded, apparently JavaScript doesn't even get its own but shares a thread with a load of other stuff. Even in most modern browsers JavaScript is typically in the same queue as painting, updating styles, and handling user actions.
Why is that?
From my experience an immensely improved user experience could be gained if JavaScript ran on its own thread, alone by JS not blocking UI rendering or the liberation of intricate or limited message queue optimization boilerplate (yes, also you, webworkers!) which the developer has to write themselves to keep the UI responsive all over the place when it really comes down to it.
I'm interested in understanding the motivation which governs such a seemingly unfortunate design decision, is there a convincing reason from a software architecture perspective?
回答1:
User Actions Require Participation from JS Event Handlers
User actions can trigger Javascript events (clicks, focus events, key events, etc...) that participate and potentially influence the user action so clearly the single JS thread can't be executing while user actions are being processed because, if so, then the JS thread couldn't participate in the user actions because it is already doing something else. So, the browser doesn't process the default user actions until the JS thread is available to participate in that process.
Rendering
Rendering is more complicated. A typical DOM modification sequence goes like this: 1) DOM modified by JS, layout marked dirty, 2) JS thread finishes executing so the browser now knows that JS is done modifying the DOM, 3) Browser does layout to relayout changed DOM, 4) Browser paints screen as needed.
Step 2) is important here. If the browser did a new layout and screen painting after every single JS DOM modification, the whole process could be incredibly inefficient if the JS was actually going to make a bunch of DOM modifications. Plus, there would be thread synchronization issues because if you had JS modifying the DOM at the same time as the browser was trying to do a relayout and repaint, you'd have to synchronize that activity (e.g. block somebody so an operation could complete without the underlying data being changed by another thread).
FYI, there are some work-arounds that can be used to force a relayout or to force a repaint from within your JS code (not exactly what you were asking, but useful in some circumstances).
Multiple Threads Accessing DOM Really Complex
The DOM is essentially a big shared data structure. The browser constructs it when the page is parsed. Then loading scripts and various JS events have a chance to modify it.
If you suddenly had multiple JS threads with access to the DOM running concurrently, you'd have a really complicated problem. How would you synchronize access? You couldn't even write the most basic DOM operation that would involve finding a DOM object in the page and then modifying it because that wouldn't be an atomic operation. The DOM could get changed between the time you found the DOM object and when you made your modification. Instead, you'd probably have to acquire a lock on at least a sub-tree in the DOM preventing it from being changed by some other thread while you were manipulating or searching it. Then, after making the modifications, you'd have to release the lock and release any knowledge of the state of the DOM from your code (because as soon as you release the lock, some other thread could be changing it). And, if you didn't do things correctly, you could end up with deadlocks or all sorts of nasty bugs. In reality, you'd have to treat the DOM like a concurrent, multi-user datastore. This would be a significantly more complex programming model.
Avoid Complexity
There is one unifying theme among the "single threaded JS" design decision. Keep things simple. Don't require an understanding of a multiple-threaded environment and thread synchronization tools and debugging of multiple threads in order to write solid, reliable browser Javascript.
One reason browser Javascript is a successful platform is because it is very accessible to all levels of developers and it relatively easy to learn and to write solid code. While browser JS may get more advanced features over time (like we got with WebWorkers), you can be absolutely sure that these will be done in a way that simple things stay simple while more advanced things can be done by more advanced developers, but without breaking any of the things that keep things simple now.
FYI, I've written a multi-user web server application in node.js and I am constantly amazed at how much less complicated much of the server design is because of single threaded nature of nodejs Javascript. Yes, there are a few things that are more of a pain to write (learn promises for writing lots of async code), but wow the simplifying assumption that your JS code is never interrupted by another request drastically simplifies the design, testing and reduces the hard to find and fix bugs that concurrency design and coding is always fraught with.
Discussion
Certainly the first issue could be solved by allowing user action event handlers to run in their own thread so they could occur any time. But, then you immediately have multi-threaded Javascript and now require a whole new JS infrastructure for thread synchronization and whole new classes of bugs. The designers of browser Javascript have consistently decided not to open that box.
The Rendering issue could be improved if desired, but at a significant complication to the browser code. You'd have to invent some way to guess when the running JS code seems like it is no longer changing the DOM (perhaps some number of ms go by with no more changes) because you have to avoid doing a relayout and screen paint immediately on every DOM change. If the browser did that, some JS operations would become 100x slower than they are today (the 100x is a wild guess, but the point is they'd be a lot slower). And, you'd have to implement thread synchronization between layout, painting and JS DOM modifications which is doable, but complicated, a lot of work and a fertile ground for browser implementation bugs. And, you have to decide what to do when you're part-way through a relayout or repaint and the JS thread makes a DOM modification (none of the answers are great).
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30932870/why-doesnt-javascript-get-its-own-thread-in-common-browsers