Benchmark: testing loops - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

1
for(var i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) { i }
2
for(var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { i }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:135.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/135.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 135 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	165959.9 Ops/sec
2	243189.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial for optimizing code, identifying bottlenecks, and ensuring compatibility across different browsers and devices.

The provided JSON benchmark definition represents a simple test case that measures the execution time of two identical loops with slight variations in syntax: one uses `++i` (post-increment) while the other uses `i++` (pre-increment).

**Options compared:**

1. **Pre-increment (`i++`) vs Post-increment (`++i`):**
	* Pros of pre-increment:
		+ Can be faster since it can be optimized by some compilers to eliminate the need for an additional memory access.
		+ Some developers prefer this syntax for its readability and convention.
	* Cons of pre-increment:
		+ May not work correctly in all cases, such as when used with `const` or `let` variables that are initialized with a value of 0.
		+ Can lead to unexpected results if the increment operation is not properly handled.
	* Pros of post-increment:
		+ More explicit and predictable syntax.
		+ Works correctly in all cases, regardless of variable initialization or modifiers.
	* Cons of post-increment:
		+ May be slower due to additional memory access and potential compiler optimizations.
2. **No optimization:**
	* No pros or cons, as it serves as a baseline for comparison.

**Other considerations:**

1. **Variable type:** The test case uses `var`-declared variables, which are subject to hoisting in JavaScript. This means that the loop variable is effectively moved to the top of its scope before execution begins.
2. **Browser and device differences:** The benchmark results show variations between different browsers (Chrome 54) and devices (Fedora), highlighting the importance of cross-browser compatibility testing.

**Library usage:**

There are no libraries used in this test case, as it only involves basic JavaScript syntax and operations.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on the fundamental difference between pre-increment (`i++`) and post-increment (`++i`).

**Alternative approaches:**

If you wanted to modify the benchmark, here are some alternative approaches:

1. **Use different loop constructs:** Replace the `for` loops with other iteration mechanisms like `while`, `do...while`, or recursive functions.
2. **Increase complexity:** Add more variables, conditional statements, or nested loops to increase the benchmark's difficulty and relevance to real-world scenarios.
3. **Test additional browsers or devices:** Expand the benchmark to include other browsers, operating systems, or device types to improve its accuracy and generalizability.
4. **Use more advanced features:** Incorporate modern JavaScript features like async/await, arrow functions, or template literals to assess their performance impact.

By understanding the pros and cons of different approaches, developers can design effective benchmarks that accurately measure performance differences in various scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

testing loops (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):