Benchmark: Haber Haber 1 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var fooSet = new Set();
for(var i=0;i<100;i++) {
  fooSet.add(i);
}

Tests:

A
var other = Array.from(fooSet);
B
var other = [...fooSet];
C
var other = []; const length = fooSet.length; for(var i=0;i<length;i++) { other[i] = fooSet[i]; }
D
const other = Array(fooSet.length), len = other.length; for(let i=0; i < len; i++) { other[i] = fooSet[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
A
B
C
D

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 break down what's being tested in this benchmark and the different approaches compared.

**Benchmark Context**
The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of different ways to create an array from a Set object in JavaScript. A Set is a collection of unique values, and it provides fast lookup, insertion, and deletion operations.

**Script Preparation Code**
The script preparation code creates a new Set object with 100 elements using the `Set` constructor:
```javascript
var fooSet = new Set();
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
  fooSet.add(i);
}
```
This code sets up the initial state of the benchmark by creating a Set object and populating it with 100 elements.

**Comparison Approaches**

There are four test cases compared in this benchmark:

1. **A**: `var other = Array.from(fooSet);`
2. **B**: `var other = [...fooSet];` (using the spread operator)
3. **C**: `var other = []; const length = fooSet.length; for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) { other[i] = fooSet[i]; }`
4. **D**: `const other = Array(fooSet.length), len = other.length; for (let i = 0; i < len; i++) { other[i] = fooSet[i]; }`

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **A**: Using the `Array.from()` method is a modern JavaScript approach that creates an array from an iterable (in this case, the Set object). This method is concise and efficient.
	* Pros: Easy to read and write, performs well in most cases.
	* Cons: May not be supported by older browsers or versions of JavaScript.
2. **B**: Using the spread operator (`...`) is another modern approach that creates an array from a Set object. This method is also concise and efficient.
	* Pros: Similar to `Array.from()`, easy to read and write, performs well in most cases.
	* Cons: May not be supported by older browsers or versions of JavaScript.
3. **C**: Creating an empty array and then iterating over the Set object to populate it is a more traditional approach.
	* Pros: Works with older browsers and versions of JavaScript, no dependence on modern features like `Array.from()` or spread operator.
	* Cons: Less concise and more verbose than other approaches.
4. **D**: Creating an array with a specific length and then filling it with the values from the Set object is similar to approach C but uses the `Array` constructor with a numeric argument.
	* Pros: Works with older browsers and versions of JavaScript, no dependence on modern features like `Array.from()` or spread operator.
	* Cons: Less concise than other approaches.

**Library/Function Used**
None. This benchmark only uses built-in JavaScript functions and data structures (Set, Array).

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**
No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark that would require additional context to understand.

**Alternative Approaches**

Some alternative approaches could include:

* Using a library like Lodash, which provides utilities for working with sets and arrays.
* Implementing a custom function for creating an array from a Set object using a specific algorithm or data structure (e.g., a linked list).
* Using a different data structure, such as a Map, to store the values from the Set object.

However, these alternatives would likely introduce additional complexity and may not be representative of typical use cases.

Related benchmarks:

Haber Haber 1 (version: 2)

no c

Comparing performance of: A vs B vs C vs D

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

A

B

C

D

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):