> Not really. Just put together a benchmark and let it speak for itself.
You seem a little bit split on this one :) Yes, creating a fair benchmark is hard. Yes, it's hard to get other people to evaluate their things using your benchmark. Yes, it's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison.
Not really. By "putting up a benchmark" I mean an objective and verifiable standard set of performance tests that everyone interested can contribute their best effort.
I means nothing if you roll out a cherry-picked ad-hoc test that compares a corner case of your best effort to a half-assed underperforming implementation of a competitor you chose because it suits you best.
There are standard benchmarks out there, which were already mentioned in this discussion. It takes virtually no effort to roll out Tamagui's best effort. Not using those actually requires more effort than using them, which casts doubt over the validity of self-serving cherry-picked ad-hoc tests.
The standard benchmark mentioned (krausest) is for JS frameworks. But Tamagui is not a framework. (It uses React as the framework on web, so would have similar perfomance to that in krausest.)
Tamagui is a style and component library (plus optimizing compiler). Do you know of any standard benchmarks for any of those?
The benchmarks are open source and adopted from competitor libraries, standard tests that style libraries have used for a long time. Nothing deceptive.
The other benchmark posted tests more framework level stuff, but could be repurposed to show a more “typical app screen” with some effort.
>> Basically it’s hard to be fully precise, (...)
> Not really. Just put together a benchmark and let it speak for itself.
You seem a little bit split on this one :) Yes, creating a fair benchmark is hard. Yes, it's hard to get other people to evaluate their things using your benchmark. Yes, it's hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison.