Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array fill method vs for loop small array
(version: 0)
Array fill method vs for loop performance validation
Comparing performance of:
For Loop fill vs Array Fill
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
For Loop fill
let arrayTest = new Array(100); for (let i = 0; i < arrayTest.length; i++){ arrayTest[i] = 0; }
Array Fill
let arrayTest = new Array(100).fill(0);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
For Loop fill
Array Fill
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two methods for filling an array with zeros: a traditional `for` loop and the newer `Array.prototype.fill()` method. **Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. **For Loop fill**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array and set each element to zero. ```javascript let arrayTest = new Array(100); for (let i = 0; i < arrayTest.length; i++) { arrayTest[i] = 0; } ``` 2. **Array Fill**: This test case uses the `Array.prototype.fill()` method to fill the entire array with zeros. ```javascript let arrayTest = new Array(100).fill(0); ``` **Comparison** The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches: * Traditional `for` loop (For Loop fill) * Newer `Array.prototype.fill()` method (Array Fill) **Pros and Cons** ### For Loop Pros: * Widely supported in older browsers * Easy to understand and implement for developers familiar with traditional loops * Can be used for more complex operations, not just filling arrays with zeros Cons: * Generally slower than modern methods like `fill()` due to the overhead of explicit looping * More prone to errors, such as off-by-one errors or incorrect loop conditions ### Array Fill Pros: * Faster and more efficient than traditional loops * Reduces code size and improves readability by eliminating explicit looping * Part of the standard JavaScript API since ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) Cons: * May not work in older browsers that don't support `fill()` or may require polyfills * Less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with modern array methods **Library/Utility Used** None mentioned in the provided benchmark code. **Special JS Features/Syntax** The benchmark uses a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6): template literals (`\r\n`) and `let` constants. These features are widely supported in modern browsers, but may not work in older versions or require polyfills for support. **Other Alternatives** If you need to fill an array with zeros, other alternatives might include: * Using a library like Lodash's `fill` function * Creating a custom utility function to fill arrays * Using a more specialized library or tool for performance-critical code Keep in mind that the choice of method ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and target audience.
Related benchmarks:
Array fill method vs for loop
Array fill method vs for loop_
Array fill method vs for loop__
Array fill method vs for loop_q
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?