Benchmark: .endsWith vs includes - 2

Script Preparation code:

var string = '.html';
var stringToCheck = '/home/ashwin/code/webcrafters/drip-stream/drip-stream-fe/build/index.html';

var result = null;

Tests:

.endsWith
result = stringToCheck.endsWith(string);
.includes
result = stringToCheck.includes(string);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.endsWith
.includes

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!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares two string manipulation methods in JavaScript: `.endsWith()` and `.includes()`. These methods are used to check if a string ends with or contains another substring, respectively.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. `.endsWith(string)`: This method checks if the end of the string matches the specified `string`.
2. `.includes(string)`: This method checks if the `string` is present anywhere in the original string.

**Pros and Cons:**

* `.endsWith()`
	+ Pros:
		- More efficient, as it only requires a single pass through the string.
		- Can be implemented using a simple loop or a regular expression.
	+ Cons:
		- Not available in older JavaScript versions (ES5).
* `.includes(string)`
	+ Pros:
		- Available in older JavaScript versions (ES5 and earlier).
		- Does not require a specific implementation, as it is a built-in method.
	+ Cons:
		- Less efficient than `.endsWith()`, as it requires multiple passes through the string.

**Other considerations:**

* Performance impact: In general, `.endsWith()` is faster than `.includes()`, especially for longer strings. However, the actual performance difference depends on the specific use case and the JavaScript engine being used.
* Code readability: While both methods are clear and concise, some developers might find it more readable to use `.includes()`, as it explicitly conveys the intent of checking if a substring is present.

**Library usage**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines, like V8 (used in Google Chrome), have implemented additional optimizations for string manipulation methods, which might affect the results of these benchmarks.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

No special features or syntax are used in these benchmark definitions. They only rely on standard JavaScript features and syntax.

**Alternative alternatives:**

If you need to compare other string manipulation methods, such as:

* `substring()`: This method extracts a subset of characters from the original string.
* `indexOf()`: This method finds the index of the first occurrence of the specified substring.
* `replace()`: This method replaces occurrences of a substring with another value.

You can create new benchmark definitions using the same format and test case structure as provided. MeasureThat.net also allows you to compare different browsers, devices, and platforms, which can provide more comprehensive insights into the performance differences between various JavaScript implementations.

Related benchmarks:

.endsWith vs includes - 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .endsWith vs .includes

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.endsWith

.includes

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):