- From: Bramus via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 19:42:24 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I think your benchmarks are measuring the wrong thing. Instead of measuring the performance of CSS Typed OM, they are constrained by style invalidation, animation performance, etc. A better benchmark would be to test _only_ the CSS Typed OM part. For example: ```js const px = new CSSUnitValue(100, 'px'); const double_px = px.mul(2); ``` ```js const NUMERIC_REGEXP = /[-]{0,1}[\d]*[.]{0,1}[\d]+/g; const px = `100px`; const value = px.match(NUMERIC_REGEXP)[0]; const double_px = `${value * 2}px`; ``` Running these against each other gives the following difference: <img width="1160" alt="Image" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/ca52bf35-4048-4ee1-b8ae-5d3f376722e2" /> While there is a difference in speed (in Chrome ~3x, in Safari ~2x), to me the main advantage CSS Typed OM brings is the ease of use it introduces. -- GitHub Notification of comment by bramus Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11567#issuecomment-2616737783 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 27 January 2025 19:42:25 UTC