So you are okay with having the server process is not responding for ten seconds? Come on!
If the same code in V8 is causing a pause to deal with GC, then the LLVM compiled code must be doing something different to handle the memory. Is it using a different GC? Is it running on a different thread? Is it just sucking up memory without freeing it?
These are all things that need to be known before getting too excited about the speed of LLVM compiled Javascript.
If you don't mention it, and if you also say numerous other things which give the impression that you may not have given the entire topic much thought, then even people who would otherwise prefer to be positive and supportive may struggle to take you seriously, and may react with frustration if you also make extraordinary claims.
(I don't know anything about LLVM support for GC, but I would be surprised if it comes with a GC that doesn't require to do something special in order to make it concurrent)
I didn't mention clearly since it wasn't a big part of the picture. Dynamic Type part was a bigger problem! Right now I prefer a separate thread for GC but I have also couple of bad cases for this kind of garbage collection. I don't think there is a 'one perfect GC for every kind of usage'. But my focus is performance consistency. Sorry for passing it on my post. I added a side note saying (GC thread).
The benchmarks you posted are extremely microscopic and artificial. They are so small, it's possible that LLVM is able to optimize them in ways that are less likely to be possible in any real application. If that's true, then their results don't predict anything about what the results of any real applications might be, and so they read like exaggerated claims. Consequently, while such benchmarks are often useful for development, they're inappropriate for high-level blog posts like this one.
If you don't have any better benchmark numbers to post at this time, that's not necessarily a problem. If you don't post any numbers, people will understand that it's a prototype and you haven't gotten there yet. That's ok.
But by posting these numbers without caveat, you give the appearance of making exaggerated claims.