flatbush VS ts-proto

> (There are ECS frameworks in JavaScript, which gives you absolutely no control over memory layout and thus completely defeats one of the primary purposes of the pattern.)

While JS does not provide great support for bit packing complex structs, typed arrays give you quite a bit of control over memory layout for simple numeric types, which is what you usually want for optimal data-oriented code anyway. This is a common technique used in fast JS libs for data visualization, ie:

https://github.com/mourner/flatbush

There are also basic operators required for bitarrays, which are useful for ECS and memory-efficient code generally.

using flatbush library instead of rbush which optimise the statically placed element, from the benchmark in the repository it could boost up to 5x the performance of rbush.

But for 500 k points, it's not many. I'd put it in the database tech I was using and hit an API for it. Or like you say, load it into memory and use Mourner's flatbush for a super simple and super fast solution..

> At pbf speeds, decoding is usually no longer a bottleneck, but bandwidth might be when comparing with gzipped JSON.

we were streaming a few hundred datapoints in a dozen flat arrays over websocket at 20-40hz and needed to decode the payload eagerly. plain JSON was a multi-factor speedup over pbf for this case. but it's fully possible i was holding it wrong, too!

even if your "bottleneck" is rendering/rasterization (10ms), but your data pipe takes 5ms instead of 1ms, it's a real effect on framerate, battery, thermals, etc.

i'm a big fan of your work! while i have you here, would you mind reviewing this sometime soon? ;)

https://github.com/mourner/flatbush/pull/44

I created it so that I could use `protoc` and `ts-proto` to convert the otel proto files into typescript files.

Re libraries incompatible with certain typescript versions - e.g. protobufjs fix - it’s been my experience that you want to try and only use compilers specific to each library and compile libraries separately. It’s unfortunate but the JS community often tries to run all JS for a project through the same single compiler tool chain, using one global version of the compiler instead of relying on and effectively linking the JS output for each library. Unless you routinely rewrite third-party libraries to match your toolchain’s expectations, you’re going to have a hard time doing that.

For a library that generates code, that’s a special case, as the code it generates must target a particular language version. You have three choices: 1. Upstream a fix as you propose; 2. Side-by-side install both TS 4.6 and TS 4.7 using workspaces or sub-projects and have some of your code compile with 4.6 and then link the results or 3. Find a replacement that is updated to 4.7. For example, https://github.com/stephenh/ts-proto has 4.7 support listed in its readme.

With ts-proto, I can pass a --ts_proto_opt=outputServices=generic-definitions as a flag to protoc to generate "generic service definitions". These definitions contain descriptors for each method, which allows to generate server and client stubs at runtime, and also generate strong types for them at compile time.

Curious to see their typescript implementation and how it compares with https://github.com/stephenh/ts-proto which works great for grpc-web.

I'm planning on modding https://github.com/stephenh/ts-proto to use https://github.com/ianstormtaylor/superstruct on the client.

We also use protobufs and typescript, so we use ts-proto for codegen + binding to grpc services.

Fwiw I maintain ts-proto (https://github.com/stephenh/ts-proto/) and it'd be cool to have the functionality you're building supported in ts-proto at somepoint, if you're curious/want to poke around/etc. :-) Right now there is grpc support via the improbable-eng grpcwebproxy, but supporting GCP's transcoding as well would be great.