Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Scoping test without log
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
1 vs 2 vs 3
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
1
var test = function test() { var x = 0; var nested= function() { for (var i=0; i< 1000000; i++) { x = x + Math.random(); } } nested(); }; test();
2
(function () { var x = 0; var nested= function() { for (var i=0; i< 1000000; i++) { x = x + Math.random(); } } nested(); })();
3
(function test() { var x = 0; var nested= function() { for (var i=0; i< 1000000; i++) { x = x + Math.random(); } } nested(); })();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
1
2
3
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'll break down the provided benchmark and its options for you. **What is tested?** The benchmark tests the performance of JavaScript's scoping behavior in different environments. Scoping refers to how JavaScript resolves variable references within a function or block scope. The test cases aim to evaluate which approach produces the most efficient execution. **Options compared:** There are three test cases: 1. **Test Case 1**: `var test = function test() { ... }` 2. **Test Case 2**: `(function () { ... })()` (Immediately Invoked Function Expression, IIFE) 3. **Test Case 3**: `(function test() { ... })()` (similar to Test Case 2 but with a named function expression) **Pros and Cons:** * **Test Case 1 (`var` declaration)**: + Pros: Simple and widely supported. + Cons: May lead to variable hoisting issues due to the `var` keyword. * **Test Case 2 (IIFE)**: + Pros: Creates a new, isolated scope that avoids variable hoisting issues. + Cons: More complex syntax and may not be as widely supported. * **Test Case 3 (named function expression)**: + Pros: Similar to Test Case 1 but with a named function, which might be more readable and maintainable. + Cons: May still lead to variable hoisting issues due to the `var` keyword. **Library usage** There is no explicit library used in these test cases. However, the benchmark results display information about the **User Agent String**, which provides details about the browser, device platform, operating system, and version running the test. **Special JavaScript feature or syntax** None of the provided test cases use special JavaScript features like async/await, Promise, or any advanced constructs. **Other alternatives** Alternative approaches to scoping in JavaScript include: 1. **let** and **const**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), these keywords define block scope, which can help avoid variable hoisting issues. 2. **Arrow functions**: While not changing the scoping behavior, arrow functions can simplify code and eliminate the need for explicit function declarations or IIFEs. 3. **Function expressions with `this` binding**: Using a function expression with `this` can affect how variables are scoped within that function. These alternatives might be worth considering when writing JavaScript code, especially in modern environments that support them. I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its options!
Related benchmarks:
difference ! and === and ==
Console.log vs Empty log
The performance cost of try catch
try vs try callback
dolittle mark 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?