4 ms·

js-framework-benchmark is the standard benchmark for UI-heavy, compute-light JS. https://krausest.github.io/js-framework-benchmark/current.html https://krausest

js-framework-benchmark is the standard benchmark for UI-heavy, compute-light JS. https://krausest.github.io/js-framework-benchmark/current.html https://krausest.github.io/js-framework-benchmark/current.ht... To see results, show "vanillajs-1" and "wasm-bindgen", then hide everything else. WASM is about 6% slower, 18% longer startup, and 66% more memory usage. Note this is a UI benchmark so the results are overwhelmingly dominated by DOM interop. Things should improve if the WASM interface types proposal ever lands.

RobbieGM 4y ago
I get that it would have a startup cost but I'm shocked that it uses more memory. Everyone complains about what a memory hog electron apps are and I assumed it was because of JS. But maybe we need something other than micro benchmarks to compare.
- game-of-throws 4y ago
  The absolute numbers aren't that different. You need 100s of MB just to display an empty Chrome window. Then the 66% is the difference excluding that baseline, e.g. it might be 300MB to load Chrome, then you measure 301MB vs 301.66MB. I guess that might be a bit misleading. I think the electron memory usage comes down to the massive HTML spec and bloated old browser codebases. It's not JS. Node+V8 doesn't have nearly the memory usage of Chrome+V8.
  - RobbieGM 4y ago
    That difference is what I'd be interested in anyway as a developer who focuses on PWAs (where the cost of chrome is paid for already). I'm trying to work out whether a WASM stack would help runtime performance, memory usage, and startup time, but based on these numbers it doesn't look so inspiring.