Performance benchmarks for Node 25.6.1, Deno 2.6.9, and Bun 1.3.9, measuring HTTP throughput, JSON parse and stringify, hashing, buffers, and async scheduling.
It’s not checking other’s claims, it’s not saying anything new, it’s not even listening to the majority of the parties.
For each of the parties (node, deno, bun): they are incentivised to only release benchmarks that make themselves look good, and are disincentivised to release benchmarks that make themselves look bad.
This article only uses benchmarks from one party then declares it the winner.
So to confirm, you don’t trust blogs where the company is selling a product or service, even if they don’t mention it in the article? If so, that would cover a lot of articles shared on this instance.
I don’t see any products or services being promoted in this article.
That’s kind of the point. You’re not supposed to.
They’re farming links so search engines see their domain as more important. That way, their entry will appear higher up on search results against competitors for their paid products.
Bun (same engine as Safari but without needing to apologise for Safari):
[17.52ms] Loop
[297.17ms] Generator
Generators are going to be slow because:
they’re going to be stack switching so much in JS runtimes which adds a lot of overhead
JS doesn’t have the other language features (yet) that you want to use with generators, which makes less folks want to use generators, which makes implementers not want to spend time optimising them. (Why bother trying to inline generator state when it’s probably going to change once the adjacent features come in?)
Until generators don’t rely on stack switching, they’re always going to be super slow.
This benchmark is pretty useless.
There’s no benchmark code shown to see if they’re doing something wrong or cherrypicking.
Also, they only tested on arm64? Why weren’t they testing on x86-64?
And what the hell is this test?
People who care about performance are using loops, not map(). Why are you even testing the slow path?
What are your thoughts on this 2023 comparison?
It’s a garbage article.
It’s not checking other’s claims, it’s not saying anything new, it’s not even listening to the majority of the parties.
For each of the parties (node, deno, bun): they are incentivised to only release benchmarks that make themselves look good, and are disincentivised to release benchmarks that make themselves look bad.
This article only uses benchmarks from one party then declares it the winner.
So, it’s garbage.
I think it’s a poorly hidden advertisement.
For what? I don’t see any products or services being promoted in this article.
https://www.repoflow.io/pricing
I don’t trust much at all.
So to confirm, you don’t trust blogs where the company is selling a product or service, even if they don’t mention it in the article? If so, that would cover a lot of articles shared on this instance.
That’s kind of the point. You’re not supposed to.
They’re farming links so search engines see their domain as more important. That way, their entry will appear higher up on search results against competitors for their paid products.
Well that depends, generators are faster than loops when you’re using Bun or Node.
Bro, how are generators going to be faster?
This is an AI article.
My results:
Firefox:
Node (uses same engine as deno, chrome, edge):
Safari (uses same engine as bun):
Bun (same engine as Safari but without needing to apologise for Safari):
Generators are going to be slow because:
Until generators don’t rely on stack switching, they’re always going to be super slow.