I now ran the benchmarks with the this['_' + i] change (which disables per-task caching, but does not really remove any/all caching alltogether. Imba is still 3

I now ran the benchmarks with the this['_' + i] change (which disables per-task caching, but does not really remove any/all caching alltogether. Imba is still 35x faster than react on the 'everything' benchmark (and even faster on the others). I still would write my apps exactly like they are in the original benchmark, but do you agree that the ['_' + i] change removes what you call 'sneaky code'? UPDATE: Since the performance was just as good with this dumber type of caching I have changed the actual benchmark to work this way. Would you still consider that caching sneaky? If so, I'm not sure what to say. Yes, Imba caches dom nodes for reuse. That is the whole philosophy behind its 'virtual dom'. Now it does not 'leak memory' anymore either, even though this 'leak' is a feature (ref comment about manual pruning) and not a bug.