Consider the chart under "Mobile: Vanilla" heading. It seems to indicate that the total rendering time _drops_ with the number of pictures. That is _almost_ physically impossible.
But it is super easy to get that kind of result in benchmarks, e.g. by not properly clearing caches between runs.
You did not think this through, did you. His chart shows that rendering 1000 photos is _faster_ (>3X) than rendering 200 photos.
Think about it. How long it took to render photos 200-1000 (in the 1000 run) ? Negative time? Please don't tell me that V8 is so awesome that it can run JS in negative time.
Easy there. You've misunderstood the benchmark. It shows the time to add 100 images, given the existing number of images. So adding the 900th-1000th image was ~3x faster than adding the 100th-200th.
I realized that, and looked over the thing again, but the measurement still does not add up - even the author calls it "bamboozle" and says "I have no idea what’s happened at the end.".
So if the benchmark produces weird results, and is published without source code, so that the results cannot be reproduced, why would anyone trust it?
Even the author suspects the V8 optimized away the vanilla code... and if that is what happened, then apples are being compared to oranges and the whole conclusion is bogus. Which was kind of my point.
Consider the chart under "Mobile: Vanilla" heading. It seems to indicate that the total rendering time _drops_ with the number of pictures. That is _almost_ physically impossible. But it is super easy to get that kind of result in benchmarks, e.g. by not properly clearing caches between runs.