Switch to ProtoDefc #45
Conversation
|
(TODO for me, format the code using standard and fix the |
|
Can't you remove the compile step from the benchmark ? |
|
If it is really slower there is little benefit... |
|
But unless it's compiling wrong, it should not be slower. |
|
Numbers don't seem to do this pull request any justice, so I will be posting two comparing videos that use |
|
|
||
| skylightsAddition = skyLightSent ? value.skyLight : Buffer.alloc(skyLightSize) | ||
| skylightsAddition = skyLightSent ? value.sky_light : Buffer.alloc(skyLightSize) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it should transform the names to camelCase then
| @@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ | |||
| }, | |||
| "dependencies": { | |||
| "prismarine-block": "^1.0.0", | |||
| "protodef": "^1.3.1", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
well ok but shouldn't you add a dep to protodefc ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No, it's not published we need my ProtoDefc stuff merged and my node-protodefc stuff merged. Use npm link.
|
new version of prismarine-chunk doesn't use protodef |
This is an experimental pull request for prismarine-chunk that switches from ProtoDef to ProtoDefc. This pull request is not close to ready, it requires many things to be done first, most of which are documented here: ProtoDef-io/node-protodefc#7
As well, this means that this repository will only work for Node version >= 8.3 (which I have been assured is not an issue)
So, for some numbers:
Yes. Your eyes are not deceiving you. ProtoDefc is slower, and I have tested it over 20 times. However, it is easily explained: ProtoDefc JIT compiles the protocol during the program execution. This certainly has a 1000+ms overhead. I predict that if this overhead is removed and ProtoDefc is 'warmed up', it will perform noticeably better on softwares like flying-squid. What's left: