Thanks! I love to see ports of these, and will update the blog post with links if so :)
There are many more such articles in the pipeline. The date-time rabbit-hole seems to go very deep...
I was so confused when I got to the benchmarks section. I'd recommend either adding a little "smaller numbers = faster" note there like you have on the figure at the top, indicating that the units are nanoseconds (or even just that they're durations at all), or (ideally, IMO) reporting throughput in calls/sec so that higher numbers = faster.
That said, I really enjoyed the article, and the presentation is just beautiful. It reminds me of something but I can't remember what, exactly. The WHATWG specs, maybe? Ugh now this is going to bother me ðŸ˜
xnacly | 4 hours ago
Love to see another one of these ben. Lets see if ill implement this in go as well :)
[OP] benjoffe | 3 hours ago
Thanks! I love to see ports of these, and will update the blog post with links if so :) There are many more such articles in the pipeline. The date-time rabbit-hole seems to go very deep...
sunshine | 2 hours ago
I was so confused when I got to the benchmarks section. I'd recommend either adding a little "smaller numbers = faster" note there like you have on the figure at the top, indicating that the units are nanoseconds (or even just that they're durations at all), or (ideally, IMO) reporting throughput in calls/sec so that higher numbers = faster.
That said, I really enjoyed the article, and the presentation is just beautiful. It reminds me of something but I can't remember what, exactly. The WHATWG specs, maybe? Ugh now this is going to bother me ðŸ˜