From 838d0e5f760a1e10504818f01721522e85696de5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Michele Caini Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2023 16:46:44 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] doc: updated README --- README.md | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index 84701447d..bc2dcd29e 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -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.
+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