|
|
@@ -196,7 +196,11 @@ comparison (this should already tell you a lot). Many of these benchmarks are
|
|
|
completely wrong, many others are simply incomplete, good at omitting some
|
|
|
information and using the wrong function to compare a given feature. Certainly
|
|
|
there are also good ones but they age quickly if nobody updates them, especially
|
|
|
-when the library they are dealing with is actively developed.
|
|
|
+when the library they are dealing with is actively developed.<br/>
|
|
|
+Out of all of them, [this](https://github.com/abeimler/ecs_benchmark) seems like
|
|
|
+the most up-to-date project and also covers a certain number of libraries. I
|
|
|
+can't say exactly whether `EnTT` is used correctly or not. However, even if used
|
|
|
+poorly, it should still give the reader an idea of where it's going to operate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The choice to use `EnTT` should be based on its carefully designed API, its
|
|
|
set of features and the general performance, **not** because some single
|
Michele Caini