Benchmark: = set vs ++ increment

Script Preparation code:

GAME = {
  day: 0,
  phase: 0,
  timer: 5
}

Tests:

= set
switch (GAME.phase){ case 0: GAME.phase = 1 break; case 1: GAME.phase = 0 break; }
++ increment
switch (GAME.phase){ case 0: ++GAME.phase; break; case 1: --GAME.phase; break; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
= set
++ increment

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares two different approaches to update a variable in a `switch` statement: assigning a new value (`= set`) versus incrementing/decrementing the existing value (`++ increment`). The goal is to determine which approach is faster.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of a JavaScript code snippet that defines an object `GAME` with three properties: `day`, `phase`, and `timer`. This setup is used as a common context for both test cases.

**Script Preparation Code**

Before running the tests, the script preparation code creates the `GAME` object with initial values:
```javascript
GAME = {
  day: 0,
  phase: 0,
  timer: 5
};
```
This ensures that both test cases start with the same initial state.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **= set**: This test case uses a `switch` statement with an assignment expression:
```javascript
switch (GAME.phase) {
  case 0:
    GAME.phase = 1;
    break;
  case 1:
    GAME.phase = 0;
    break;
}
```
Here, the `phase` property is assigned a new value using the `=` operator.

2. **++ increment**: This test case uses a `switch` statement with an increment/decrement expression:
```javascript
switch (GAME.phase) {
  case 0:
    ++GAME.phase;
    break;
  case 1:
    --GAME.phase;
    break;
}
```
In this case, the `phase` property is incremented or decremented using the `++` operator.

**Library and Syntax**

There are no external libraries used in these test cases. The syntax is standard JavaScript, with a focus on basic control structures like `switch` statements.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark doesn't utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax. It's a straightforward comparison of two assignment techniques.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to update variables in a `switch` statement, here are a few options:

* Using `const` and destructuring: Instead of using an assignment operator (`=`), you could use `const` and destructuring to update the variable.
```javascript
const { phase } = GAME;
if (phase === 0) {
  phase = 1;
} else {
  phase = 0;
}
```
* Using a ternary operator: You could also use a ternary operator to update the value in one line:
```javascript
GAME.phase = phase === 0 ? 1 : 0;
```
However, these alternatives might not be directly comparable to the original benchmark, as they introduce additional syntax and semantics.

Keep in mind that benchmarking JavaScript code can be complex, and results may vary depending on the specific use case and environment. MeasureThat.net provides a useful framework for comparing different approaches, but it's essential to consider other factors like caching, optimization, and platform-specific differences when interpreting the results.

Related benchmarks:

= set vs ++ increment (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: = set vs ++ increment

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

= set

++ increment

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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