3 ms·

That's pretty interesting. Could you share you project? There are benchmark which compare JavaScript and AssemblyScript: https://github.com/nischayv/as-benchm

That's pretty interesting. Could you share you project? There are benchmark which compare JavaScript and AssemblyScript: https://github.com/nischayv/as-benchmarks https://github.com/nischayv/as-benchmarks https://github.com/nischayv/as-benchmarks/issues/3#issuecomment-623159721 https://github.com/nischayv/as-benchmarks/issues/3#issuecomm...

v_pragma 6y ago
Unfortunately, no, it's a commercial closed-source project. I profiled both JS and WA versions, the hottest methods took basically the same amount of time in both versions, except that WA build additionally spend ~25% of all time in __retain or something like that.
- maxgraey 6y ago
  Do you intensive use small objects like Vec3, Quaternion and etc? AS hasn't scalar replacement optimization pass yet which JavaScript definitely has. Also it will be much better after implementing tuple / records which depends on multi-value proposal for now. All this significantly reduce ARC / memory pressure. But my assumption it could be also wrong measurement. Most of people uses benchmark.js which also measure js <-> wasm interop overhead which usually main bottleneck.
  - v_pragma 6y ago
    > AS hasn't scalar replacement optimization pass yet which JavaScript definitely has. Also it will be much better after implementing tuple / records which depends on multi-value proposal for now. Yes, I do use a lot of small objects. That's an interesting information, I'll keep an eye on multi-value proposal, thank you! > Most of people uses benchmark.js which also measure js <-> wasm interop overhead which usually main bottleneck. Nope, I loaded all the data into WA module upon initialization and don't perform any additional synchronization between WA and JS afterwards (which is also kind of unfair advantage for WA).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
benjamin-lee 6y ago
I'm not the OP but I can confirm in my own project, we found about a 10x performance gap between AssemblyScript and TypeScript. In essence, we're working on a rewrite of DNAVisualization.org[1][2], a serverless web tool for the interactive inspection of raw DNA sequences. We hoped that WASM would give us a performance boost but have been generally disappointed with both the performance and the amount of complexity involved in getting the tooling to work. We did do a benchmark[3] and, unless we made an error (likely, given that all of us are new to WASM), found that JS was much faster for our simple algorithms. WASM had the approximate performance of our original pure Python implementation[4], so not great. [1]: https://dnavisualization.org https://dnavisualization.org [2]: https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/W1/W20/5512090 https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/W1/W20/5512090 [3]: https://github.com/Lab41/dnaviz/tree/benchmarks/benchmarks/a.. https://github.com/Lab41/dnaviz/tree/benchmarks/benchmarks/a.... [4]: https://github.com/Lab41/squiggle https://github.com/Lab41/squiggle
- maxgraey 6y ago
  I made PR which suggest some changes and fixes: https://github.com/Lab41/dnaviz/pull/21 https://github.com/Lab41/dnaviz/pull/21
  - maxgraey 6y ago
    As you can see AssemblyScript approx 4x-4.5x times faster now

v_pragma 6y ago

Unfortunately, no, it's a commercial closed-source project. I profiled both JS and WA versions, the hottest methods took basically the same amount of time in both versions, except that WA build additionally spend ~25% of all time in __retain or something like that.

maxgraey 6y ago
Do you intensive use small objects like Vec3, Quaternion and etc? AS hasn't scalar replacement optimization pass yet which JavaScript definitely has. Also it will be much better after implementing tuple / records which depends on multi-value proposal for now. All this significantly reduce ARC / memory pressure. But my assumption it could be also wrong measurement. Most of people uses benchmark.js which also measure js <-> wasm interop overhead which usually main bottleneck.
- v_pragma 6y ago
  > AS hasn't scalar replacement optimization pass yet which JavaScript definitely has. Also it will be much better after implementing tuple / records which depends on multi-value proposal for now. Yes, I do use a lot of small objects. That's an interesting information, I'll keep an eye on multi-value proposal, thank you! > Most of people uses benchmark.js which also measure js <-> wasm interop overhead which usually main bottleneck. Nope, I loaded all the data into WA module upon initialization and don't perform any additional synchronization between WA and JS afterwards (which is also kind of unfair advantage for WA).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

benjamin-lee 6y ago

I'm not the OP but I can confirm in my own project, we found about a 10x performance gap between AssemblyScript and TypeScript. In essence, we're working on a rewrite of DNAVisualization.org[1][2], a serverless web tool for the interactive inspection of raw DNA sequences. We hoped that WASM would give us a performance boost but have been generally disappointed with both the performance and the amount of complexity involved in getting the tooling to work. We did do a benchmark[3] and, unless we made an error (likely, given that all of us are new to WASM), found that JS was much faster for our simple algorithms. WASM had the approximate performance of our original pure Python implementation[4], so not great. [1]: https://dnavisualization.org https://dnavisualization.org [2]: https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/W1/W20/5512090 https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/W1/W20/5512090 [3]: https://github.com/Lab41/dnaviz/tree/benchmarks/benchmarks/a.. https://github.com/Lab41/dnaviz/tree/benchmarks/benchmarks/a.... [4]: https://github.com/Lab41/squiggle https://github.com/Lab41/squiggle

maxgraey 6y ago
I made PR which suggest some changes and fixes: https://github.com/Lab41/dnaviz/pull/21 https://github.com/Lab41/dnaviz/pull/21
- maxgraey 6y ago
  As you can see AssemblyScript approx 4x-4.5x times faster now