4 ms·

Not the author, but it seems as though Bluebird is indeed faster and more efficient (see [1]). Could also just be habit though. [1]: https://softwareengineerin

Not the author, but it seems as though Bluebird is indeed faster and more efficient (see [1]). Could also just be habit though. [1]: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/278778/306009 https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/278778/30600...

hinkley 8y ago
I'd like to see new benchmarks for that. If you recall from the V8 6.6 release notes, they talked about performance impromevents in promise and async benchmarks. The Notes: (see Asynchronous performance improvements) https://v8project.blogspot.com/2018/03/v8-release-66.html https://v8project.blogspot.com/2018/03/v8-release-66.html The Graph: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T_HWK2MlCOY/WrkGw1-ABJI/AAAAAAAAB4U/8aUwrDtT3u0wkUN0xdLnV5Kkhf00H3QyQCLcBGAs/s1600/promise.png https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T_HWK2MlCOY/WrkGw1-ABJI/AAAAAAAAB... Looks like about 20%, 30% for some benchmarks. Note to release note authors: Please put IDs on your headers so people can cite you properly. Thank you.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- realPubkey 8y ago
  Looks like native promise is faster at least in the latest chrome. https://jsperf.com/promise-vs-bluebird https://jsperf.com/promise-vs-bluebird
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - hinkley 8y ago
    And the speed difference on Firefox 60 is barely outside the confidence interval. One thing I noted in looking at the bluebird benchmark is that native promises on Node 10 are only a hair slower than bluebird on Node 8.9. So there's a sales pitch for upgrading to node 10 so you can stop using bluebird.
- hinkley 8y ago
  Node 10.1, doxbee benchmark: file time(ms) memory(MB) promises-bluebird-generator.js 282 39.13 promises-native-async-await.js 292 48.66 promises-bluebird.js 305 47.38 promises-then-promise.js 382 67.37 promises-ecmascript6-native.js 390 66.93 Parallel: file time(ms) memory(MB) promises-bluebird.js 547 99.01 promises-bluebird-generator.js 574 98.68 promises-native-async-await.js 1165 254.62 promises-ecmascript6-native.js 1231 256.41 promises-then-promise.js 1569 302.88 Still a big gap for parallel, but not what it used to be.

hinkley 8y ago

I'd like to see new benchmarks for that. If you recall from the V8 6.6 release notes, they talked about performance impromevents in promise and async benchmarks. The Notes: (see Asynchronous performance improvements) https://v8project.blogspot.com/2018/03/v8-release-66.html https://v8project.blogspot.com/2018/03/v8-release-66.html The Graph: https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T_HWK2MlCOY/WrkGw1-ABJI/AAAAAAAAB4U/8aUwrDtT3u0wkUN0xdLnV5Kkhf00H3QyQCLcBGAs/s1600/promise.png https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-T_HWK2MlCOY/WrkGw1-ABJI/AAAAAAAAB... Looks like about 20%, 30% for some benchmarks. Note to release note authors: Please put IDs on your headers so people can cite you properly. Thank you.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
realPubkey 8y ago
Looks like native promise is faster at least in the latest chrome. https://jsperf.com/promise-vs-bluebird https://jsperf.com/promise-vs-bluebird
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- hinkley 8y ago
  And the speed difference on Firefox 60 is barely outside the confidence interval. One thing I noted in looking at the bluebird benchmark is that native promises on Node 10 are only a hair slower than bluebird on Node 8.9. So there's a sales pitch for upgrading to node 10 so you can stop using bluebird.
hinkley 8y ago
Node 10.1, doxbee benchmark: file time(ms) memory(MB) promises-bluebird-generator.js 282 39.13 promises-native-async-await.js 292 48.66 promises-bluebird.js 305 47.38 promises-then-promise.js 382 67.37 promises-ecmascript6-native.js 390 66.93 Parallel: file time(ms) memory(MB) promises-bluebird.js 547 99.01 promises-bluebird-generator.js 574 98.68 promises-native-async-await.js 1165 254.62 promises-ecmascript6-native.js 1231 256.41 promises-then-promise.js 1569 302.88 Still a big gap for parallel, but not what it used to be.