RustTokioBenchmark VS phaser

> If you ever pull up a debugger and step through an async Rust/tokio codebase, you'll get a good sense for what the overhead here we're talking about is.

So I didn't quite do that, but the overhead was interesting to me anyway, and as I was unable to find existing benchmarks (surely they exist?), I instructed computer to create one for me: https://github.com/eras/RustTokioBenchmark

On this wee laptop the numbers are 532 vs 6381 cpu cycles when sending a message (one way) from one async thread to another (tokio) or one kernel thread to another (std::mpsc), when limited to one CPU. (It's limited to one CPU as rdtscp numbers are not comparable between different CPUs; I suppose pinning both threads to their own CPUs and actually measuring end-to-end delay would solve that, but this is what I have now.)

So this was eye-opening to me, as I expected tokio to be even faster! But still, it's 10x as fast as the thread-based method.. Straight up callback would still be a lot faster, of course, but it will affect the way you structure your code.

Improvements to methodology accepted via pull requests :).

If you're targeting the browser first why not use a browser first library like PhaserJS [0]?. I don't see a reason to work around with WASM; HTML5 canvas might be everything that you need.

[0] https://phaser.io/

Gold : GitHub, Phaser Studio, Arcadia

Versatility: JavaScript is not limited to web browsers. It's used in a variety of environments, including mobile app development (using frameworks like React Native), game development (using libraries like Phaser), and even serverless computing (using platforms like AWS Lambda).

This reminds me of my first real dev job, 10y ago, making small facebook games with https://phaser.io it was actually kind of fun now that I think back.

Is it worth it? I think while attempting to create a game engine with the Canvas API and vanilla JavaScript. (I quickly ditched that idea and started using PhaserJS)

I didn't try to build anything with Phaser, but I evaluated it a bit when trying to pick a game engine for a 2D web game.

The tech didn't impress me that much, but it also seemed like the most mature 2D game engine available in JS.

Notably, Phaser 4 was announced ~four years ago and was an attempt to get the project written natively in TypeScript. It looks pretty dead in the water - https://github.com/phaserjs/phaser and having a "best effort" TypeScript experience layered onto Phaser 3 didn't excite me.

Additionally, with browsers gaining support for WebGPU, I expect any game engine worth their snuff to begin rapidly adopting support for WebGPU. As best I can tell, any hope of Phaser supporting WebGPU is lumped into Phaser 4, so... not much to say there.

Overall, it was a little tough for me to tell if I was being overly critical and viewing a mature product as a ghost town, but that's the impression I took away from it.

As far as I can tell, BabylonJS is king in town for a TypeScript game engine, but its focus is 3D experiences. I didn't find an especially compelling 2D game engine. I ended up making a prototype using React + PixiJS + React-Pixi, but that was hardly an engine and had significant performance issues.

Now I am building in Rust with Bevy. It's slow going, creating UI elements sucks right now, but the underlying tech is super solid and I feel good about what I write and what I learn even if I'm dismayed at the pace in which I am creating.