> i dont think i ever said label measuring/collision detection is a performance hog. compared to the work of doing the plot itself, it's insignificant. avoiding

> i dont think i ever said label measuring/collision detection is a performance hog. compared to the work of doing the plot itself, it's insignificant. avoiding that work is more of a code size and complexity reduction for uPlot, rather than a perf opt. Okay, fair enough > how else could i possibly present a benchmark of my lib without limiting the alternatives to its own functional scope? Can't think of a good way to do that. That's why I don't think your benchmark is BS or in bad faith. All I was trying to say (but clearly didn't communicate effectively) is that the value of the benchmark is limited as comparison data for me and I assume others because it's not really comparing the same end-to-end functionality if in the vast majority of cases the implementor would have to manually add some things that it doesn't do out of the box (thereby burning the same CPU cycles you're avoiding). Anyway, let's close this thread. The above footnote aside it looks like a super clean library. Well done.