Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Check_apply_speed
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
applyJS vs not_applyJS
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
applyJS
var x = [100, 200] var y = [300, ...x]
not_applyJS
var y = [100, 200, 300]
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
applyJS
not_applyJS
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):
I'd be happy to explain the benchmark being tested and provide insights into the options compared, pros, cons, and other considerations. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for measuring the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasurThat.net. The test cases are designed to compare the execution speed of two different approaches: 1. `applyJS`: This approach uses the `apply()` method to pass an array as an argument to another function. 2. `not_applyJS`: This approach does not use `apply()`. Instead, it creates a new array by concatenating the initial array with the elements from another array using the spread operator (`...`). **Options compared** The two test cases are designed to compare the performance of these two approaches: * **Pros of applyJS**: Using `apply()` can be more explicit and readable when working with functions and arrays. It can also be beneficial for older browsers that do not support the spread operator. * **Cons of applyJS**: However, using `apply()` can introduce additional overhead due to function invocation and array manipulation. * **Pros of not_applyJS**: The spread operator (`...`) is a more modern and efficient way to concatenate arrays. It also allows for easier code readability. * **Cons of not_applyJS**: However, it may not be supported by older browsers or require explicit syntax for compatibility. **Other considerations** When running these benchmarks, other factors can affect the results, such as: * **Browser versions and engines**: Different browsers have different implementations of JavaScript features, which can impact performance. * **Device platforms and operating systems**: Hardware and software configurations can influence execution speed. * **Script preparation code and HTML preparation code**: The scripts used to prepare the test environment can also impact benchmark results. **Libraries and special JS features** In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, some JavaScript features are used, such as: * `apply()`: A built-in JavaScript method for passing an array as an argument to a function. * The spread operator (`...`): A modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. **Alternatives** Other alternatives to measure the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks could include: * **V8 benchmark**: MeasurThat.net also provides V8 benchmarks, which are designed to test the performance of the V8 JavaScript engine used by Google Chrome. * **JSPerf**: A web-based benchmarking tool that allows users to create and run their own JavaScript benchmarks. * **BenchmarkDotNet**: A .NET library for creating and running benchmarks, which can also be used with Node.js. Keep in mind that each alternative has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of benchmark depends on specific requirements and use cases.
Related benchmarks:
Division by 1000 vs bitwise shifting approximation (1024)
Multiply speed test 3
Round float
Round float fa
Math.round vs Bitwise
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?