
Show HN: Adblock Fast - byoogle
http://adblockfast.com/
======
degenerate
µBlock Origin is conveniently missing from the benchmark table... we know you
benchmarked it... so what's the outcome? Faster or slower? :)

~~~
Jerry2
It's faster than any traditional ad blocking method due to the way iOS9
"Content Blocking" has been implemented. Give this a read:
[http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-
adblocking/](http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-adblocking/)

~~~
byoogle
All the benchmarks were run in Chrome (there are a few notes on methodology
in-page).

We didn’t benchmark uBlock [Origin], but I just ”ran” the filesize benchmark
:-):

* uBlock Origin: 1.41 MB

* uBlock: 3.54 MB

* Adblock Fast: 96.59 KB

~~~
Nyr
No one cares about 3 megabytes of disk usage. I did a quick memory "benchmark"
for you. This is loading TechCrunch in 64 bit Chrome for Mac:

* uBlock Origin: 92,9 MB

* Adblock Fast: 54,7 MB

Considering uBlock Origin packs a lot of functionality (and lists) which your
extension lacks, you don't really have much advantage (if any).

Also, consuming a "lower percentage of CPU" is counterproductive. Adblockers
should peak the CPU for the smallest amount of time possible, not use a little
percentage of CPU time during a longer period of time as you advertise. That's
just ridiculous.

~~~
linksbro
It's clear they haven't made a "better, faster" adblock, just one they can
pass off as "faster" with misleading benchmarks all for the goal of not
fighting on behalf of the user, but for advertising their app firm.

------
solox3
The seven rules:

[https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast/blob/master/op...](https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast/blob/master/opera/chrome/scripts/blocking.js)

Are these regular expressions machine-compiled?

~~~
chrisseaton
So what if they aren't? I haven't read the expressions in depth but they look
like on a quick glance like they could be checked in linear time. It may have
a high degree of branching, but so what when you are checking a single linear
path through it for each URL?

~~~
stygiansonic
This is correct. According to this article[0], posted in another comment[1],
iOS 9's content blocker regular expressions are limited to a subset of regex
for which matching can be done in linear time:

 _" Extremely powerful, regular expressions can surprisingly be done in linear
time if you use a strict set of regular expression characters through
Thompson’s NFA algorithm. Safari’s Content Blocker implementation in fact
imposes this strict regular expression limitation ..."_

0\. [http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-
adblocking/](http://blog.appgrounds.com/content-blockers-beat-adblocking/)

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10192562](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10192562)

------
linksbro
Sorry, I'm not using an extension built for marketing your company, even if it
is GPL licensed.

Also, I get that regex is how you do it on iOS9 and it's fast on there because
of Apple's specific regex implementation, but you're misleading people that
your 7 humongous regex are going to be faster than flagship blockers (uBlock
Origin) on the desktop.

------
tkinom
How is this compare to no-script?

My ff with no-script is 10-50 times faster than chrome on most of the
websites. Should be safer too.

Is there any no-script options for iOS? (default with JS off but selectively
turn on for just a few trust websites.)

~~~
JoshTriplett
> How is this compare to no-script?

Adblockers and Noscript are not in the same category. Adblockers are useful
for everyone, and shouldn't break things as long as the block list is well
curated. Noscript is for highly technical users who know they're going to
break many sites they visit and are prepared to deal with the pain of doing so
and debugging the result because they consider it worth the cost.

------
astaroth360
Yeah, I'd really like to see this benchmarked against µBlock Origin. I'm fine
with switching if it truly is faster and works comparably, but until I see
proof of that, I see no reason to switch over.

The authors of this product should run their adblocker against all of them
here: [https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-ad-blocking-extensions-
tested...](https://www.raymond.cc/blog/10-ad-blocking-extensions-tested-for-
best-performance/view-all/)

------
jessermeyer
so this is an ad block advertising itself. feels contradictory.

------
greydius
"maybe doing good work and shipping good products ought to replace
advertising" is the best thing I've ever come across in fine print.

------
kup0
No evidence that it makes any difference compared to uBlock Origin on desktop.

------
axelfreeman
Why wants this extension run in background when i close Chrome on Windows?

------
Redoubts
Are there any other notable iOS blockers to compare this against?

------
dang
This is not a valid Show HN until you have something for people to try out.
People can't try out an email signup, which is why email signups are
explicitly excluded by the rules:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html)

~~~
byoogle
There’s an install button for both Chrome and Opera at the top of the page.
Wtf?

~~~
dang
Sure, but the story you submitted was "Show HN: Adblock Fast – An iOS 9 ad
blocker", and there isn't an iOS ad blocker, only an email signup and a demo
image. Unless I'm missing something, that's a plain violation of the most
important rule.

Users email us to complain when they see posts that break this, because "Show
HN" is an implicit contract that they'll be able to try a piece of software
out. (The standards are looser for non-software projects.)

~~~
byoogle
Understood, but the title got edited a couple times – could you edit back to
something more neutral? (E.g., at one point the title was plain, old “Show HN:
Adblock Fast”.)

There are three things at the top of page that are brand new and people can
try out (plus we sent almost 100 copies of the iOS app so far to people who
signed up this morning):

* [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nneejgmhfoecfeoffa...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nneejgmhfoecfeoffakdnolopppbbkfi)

* [https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/adblock-fast/](https://addons.opera.com/en/extensions/details/adblock-fast/)

* [https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast](https://github.com/rocketshipapps/adblockfast)

~~~
dang
Ok, we've put the title back to "Show HN: Adblock Fast" and restored the post.

The logs turned out to be more complicated than I thought. You submitted "Show
HN: A preview of our iOS 9 ad blocker". That did break the rules—a "preview"
can't be a Show HN when the "preview" is an email signup and an image. A
moderator changed that to "Adblock Fast", and then a moderator changed it to
"Show HN: Adblock Fast – An iOS 9 ad blocker".

Since you do have new things for people to try out, though, it seems like
making the title more general is the best solution.

~~~
byoogle
Cool, ty!

