Re:A Secure Runtime for JavaScript and TypeScript Built with...
by unictek on Sunday July 07, 2019 @04:47AM
(#20374177)
Careful with Deno, performance is still low:
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3397140/48649635-8...
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A Secure Runtime for JavaScript and TypeScript Built with...
by inglor on Sunday July 07, 2019 @04:59AM
(#20374211)
That's just FUD through a synthetic benchmark by the person who wrote uWS after he approached Ryan and Ryan wouldn't do everything he asked for...
Re:A Secure Runtime for JavaScript and TypeScript Built with...
by unictek on Sunday July 07, 2019 @05:08AM
(#20374238)
Running a local benchmark to compare Node.js and Deno gave me the same magnitude of performance difference. I like the concepts behind Deno but the performance should stay a top priority. Even more for a new technology that is looking for future adoption. If Deno gets faster than Node.js, I adopt it. If it stays 5x less performant than Node.js, I skip it.
Re:A Secure Runtime for JavaScript and TypeScript Built with...
by kevinkassimo on Sunday July 07, 2019 @10:36AM
(#20375268)
Are you running deno 0.10.0 versus Node? Since there has been some internal refactoring it should now be 80% wrt basic http req/sec (ref: https://deno.land/benchmarks.html#all , though the benchmark might have not covered everything)
Overhead from Flatbuffers is a major reason of the slowdown and we are seeking to get rid of it.
Re:A Secure Runtime for JavaScript and TypeScript Built with...
by PudgePacket on Sunday July 07, 2019 @05:45AM
(#20374337)
That bench has deno at 0.2, it's now at 0.10, though I have no idea how much performance work has been done.
Performance should improve over time, there's no fundamental reason from what I understand that it shouldn't be as fast or faster than node.
node has had 10 years of work and performance effort from so many people and organisations.