3 ms·

Careful with Deno, performance is still low: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/3397140/48649635-89060d00-e9f3-11e8-9447-d4dbd050a310.png https://user-im

• inglor 7y ago
  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...
  • unictek 7y ago
    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.
    • kevinkassimo 7y ago
      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 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.
• PudgePacket 7y ago
  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.