It's a garbage article.

It's not checking other's claims, it's not saying anything new, it's not even listening to the majority of the parties.

For each of the parties (node, deno, bun): they are incentivised to only release benchmarks that make themselves look good, and are disincentivised to release benchmarks that make themselves look bad.

This article only uses benchmarks from one party then declares it the winner.

So, it's garbage.

For what? I don't see any products or services being promoted in this article.

Bro, how are generators going to be faster?

This is an AI article.

My results:

Firefox:

Loop: 44ms - timer ended

Generator: 4580ms - timer ended

Node (uses same engine as deno, chrome, edge):

Loop: 30.577ms

Generator: 1.533s

Safari (uses same engine as bun):

Loop: 605.222ms

Generator: 2804.669ms

Bun (same engine as Safari but without needing to apologise for Safari):

[17.52ms] Loop

[297.17ms] Generator

Generators are going to be slow because:

• they're going to be stack switching so much in JS runtimes which adds a lot of overhead
• JS doesn't have the other language features (yet) that you want to use with generators, which makes less folks want to use generators, which makes implementers not want to spend time optimising them. (Why bother trying to inline generator state when it's probably going to change once the adjacent features come in?)

Until generators don't rely on stack switching, they're always going to be super slow.