Benchmark: float32array init

Tests:

implicit
const x = new Float32Array(3);
explicit
const x = Float32Array.of(0, 0, 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
implicit
explicit

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
implicit	28420514.0 Ops/sec
explicit	15955326.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark data to explain what's being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**What's being tested:**
MeasureThat.net is testing how JavaScript engines initialize Float32Array objects. Specifically, it's comparing two approaches:

1. Implicit initialization (using `new Float32Array(3);`)
2. Explicit initialization (using `Float32Array.of(0, 0, 0);`)

**Approach comparison:**

* **Implicit Initialization (`new Float32Array(3);)`**
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to use and understand.
		- Allows for more flexibility in creating arrays with multiple elements.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower due to the overhead of object creation.
		- Might lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., when using `new` on other types of objects).
* **Explicit Initialization (`Float32Array.of(0, 0, 0);)`**
	+ Pros:
		- Can be faster since it's a more lightweight creation process.
		- Ensures explicit control over array initialization.
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose and harder to read for simple use cases.
		- Limited flexibility in creating arrays with multiple elements.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark is using the V8 JavaScript engine (specifically, Chrome 126), which might not be representative of other engines or versions.
* The tests are running on a desktop device, which could impact results compared to mobile or web-based environments.
* MeasureThat.net likely aims to identify performance differences between implicit and explicit array initialization methods in modern JavaScript engines.

**Library usage:**
None is mentioned in the provided benchmark data. However, it's worth noting that Float32Array and its related methods (like `of()`) are part of the ECMAScript standard, so no external library is being used.

**Special JS features or syntax:**
There are none explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript features like `const`, `new` keywords, and array literals.

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few:

* For explicit initialization:
	+ NativeArray (a low-level, native array class available in some browsers)
	+ TypedArrays (like Float64Array or Int32Array) for more control over data types
* For implicit initialization:
	+ Array.from() method to create an array from an iterable source
	+ Other constructors like Int8Array, Uint8Array, etc.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as performance-critical as the specific use case being tested here.

Related benchmarks:

float32array init (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: implicit vs explicit

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

implicit

explicit

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):