Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Testing push
(version: 0)
Testing push
Comparing performance of:
for vs map vs map using fat arrow
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
for
const a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]; var b = []; for (i = 0; i < a.length; i++) { b.push({"identifier" : a[i]}); }
map
const a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]; var b = []; b = a.map(function(i){ return {"identifier": i}; });
map using fat arrow
const a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]; var b = []; b = a.map(i => {return {'identifier': i}});
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
for
map
map using fat arrow
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to compare three different approaches for creating an array of objects from a source array using the `map` function in JavaScript: 1. **Traditional `map`**: The first approach uses the traditional syntax of the `map` function with a callback function. 2. **Fat Arrow `map`**: The second approach uses a fat arrow (`=>`) to define the callback function, which is equivalent to a traditional function declaration with an implicit `return` statement. **What's Being Tested** The benchmark measures the performance (in terms of executions per second) of each approach on different browsers and devices. Specifically: * `for`: The traditional loop-based approach for iterating over the source array. * `map using fat arrow`: The fat arrow-based approach using an arrow function to create a new array of objects. * `map`: The traditional `map` function with a callback function. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares the performance of three different approaches: 1. **Traditional `for` loop**: A simple loop that iterates over the source array and pushes objects onto a new array. 2. **Fat Arrow `map` using arrow functions**: An optimized approach that uses an arrow function to create a new array of objects directly. 3. **Traditional `map` with callback functions**: The traditional syntax of the `map` function, which is used as a baseline for comparison. **Pros and Cons** Here are some general pros and cons of each approach: * **Traditional `for` loop**: + Pros: Simple to understand, widely supported. + Cons: Less efficient than optimized approaches like fat arrow `map`. * **Fat Arrow `map using arrow functions`**: + Pros: More concise, optimized for modern JavaScript engines. + Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments. * **Traditional `map` with callback functions**: + Pros: Widely supported, easy to understand. + Cons: Less efficient than the optimized approaches. **Libraries and Special Features** None of the benchmark tests use any libraries. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript engines have various features and optimizations that can affect performance, such as: * Arrow functions (`=>`) * Spread operators (`...`) * Template literals (`${}`) These features are not explicitly tested in this benchmark but may be considered when optimizing for different browsers and environments. **Other Alternatives** There are other alternatives to these approaches, such as: * Using `forEach` instead of `map` * Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming * Using a specialized array manipulation function, like `Array.prototype.mapSync` However, the traditional `for` loop and fat arrow `map` using arrow functions are generally considered to be among the most efficient approaches.
Related benchmarks:
Push vs Spread stuff
Push vs Spread Random
push vs spread
js push vs spread
spread vs push 001
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?