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/issues/3#issuecomm...
There are benchmark which compare JavaScript and AssemblyScript: https://github.com/nischayv/as-benchmarks https://github.com/nischayv/as-benchmarks/issues/3#issuecomm...
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 [2]: https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/47/W1/W20/5512090 [3]: https://github.com/Lab41/dnaviz/tree/benchmarks/benchmarks/a.... [4]: https://github.com/Lab41/squiggle
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).