← Back to context Comment by makapuf 2 years ago Yes, using WASM and Go in an contrived example and not mentioning tinyGo is not very honest. 2 comments makapuf Reply ghusbands 2 years ago Do you have reason to believe that tinyGo would do better on that particular benchmark? csjh 2 years ago Based on the name, I’d imagine part of TinyGo’s raison d`être would be a smaller binary size. Plus, seems optimized for speed rather than speed-of-compiler
ghusbands 2 years ago Do you have reason to believe that tinyGo would do better on that particular benchmark? csjh 2 years ago Based on the name, I’d imagine part of TinyGo’s raison d`être would be a smaller binary size. Plus, seems optimized for speed rather than speed-of-compiler
csjh 2 years ago Based on the name, I’d imagine part of TinyGo’s raison d`être would be a smaller binary size. Plus, seems optimized for speed rather than speed-of-compiler
Do you have reason to believe that tinyGo would do better on that particular benchmark?
Based on the name, I’d imagine part of TinyGo’s raison d`être would be a smaller binary size. Plus, seems optimized for speed rather than speed-of-compiler