firefox-performance-dashboards VS hyperfine

> Show me these pages that Firefox doesn't render well.

I'm not doing homework for you. Lots of pages don't render well in Firefox, it's a well known issue which is why it comes up in every thread about Firefox.

> Show me pages that tank Firefox performance.

Firefox in general performs poorly. Again, known long-term ongoing issue. Look at this thread where almost every top-level comment is sceptical that Firefox is even close to Chrome in performance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36770883

You can find ongoing performance benchmarks between Chrome and Firefox here, and it's not flattering for FF: https://arewefastyet.com

> How many of them will have -webkit-* and other engine-exclusive markup/CSS?

I don't care, at all. It's not my job, as a user, to debug performance problems.

> Firefox updates every 6 weeks, just like Chrome.

Ok? I didn't say anything about update cadence.

The link is terrible. Maybe the article should link to https://arewefastyet.com or maybe the Speedometer selection at https://arewefastyet.com/win10/benchmarks/raptor-desktop-spe...

Well I would wager a guess it's due to consistency. The full site includes a bunch of different benchmarks, with a lot of them having the y axis as execution time in milliseconds. Meaning, lower is better. They probably just wanted to keep that consistency even with tests that use scores. Definitely a bit misleading without the full context. The full site is arewefastyet.com

They do... They just don't have the resources Google does. If you see https://arewefastyet.com you can see that Firefox has been steadily improving in speed, and they have actually recently been working to make react faster.

I filed a bug for that.

Check out the official hyperfine Github repo

And then I used hyperfine to run the benchmarks on my MacBook Pro 14 M2 Max, and here are the results:

Search "benchmarking tools for linux" and decide that hyperfine is good for what I'm doing. Run Jennifer's new python script against my refactored perl and find that the python is 1.26 times faster for k=3 and 1.47 times faster for k=4. For the Covid-19 sequence, these are both on the order of hundreds of milliseconds.

> It is very possible to write sub 100ms procedures in TS, […]

I will not disagree with this statement because I don’t have a way to test inshellisense right now. Could you (or anyone with a working Node + NPM installation) please install inshellisense and post the actual numbers? Perhaps using a tool like hyperfine (https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine).

Yeah, while it's not as thorough as these tools, the method is at least reproducible and sane, and with ~10 or so samples, you get an interval with a nice confidence.

Another through method will be hyperfine[0], yet I wanted to provide a method which requires no installation and can be done in a whim, without jumps and hoops, with the tools already at hand.

[0]: https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine

That is native and inbuild but I would suggest below options instead 1. Using lazy's Profile tab instead https://github.com/folke/lazy.nvim 2. Using a dedicated plugin to do this https://github.com/dstein64/vim-startuptime. 3. Using an external program hyperfine is one that I use https://github.com/sharkdp/hyperfine

Fair enough, although might I recommend using hyperfine for your testing? ;p