Benchmark: String vs Object Literal

Script Preparation code:

var type = 'coke';
var drink;

Tests:

Switch
switch(type) { case 'coke': drink = 'Coke'; break; case 'pepsi': drink = 'Pepsi'; break; case 'lemonade': drink = 'Lemonade'; break; default: drink = 'Unknown drink!'; } console.log(drink);
Object Literal
function getDrink (type) { var drinks = { 'coke': 'Coke', 'pepsi': 'Pepsi', 'lemonade': 'Lemonade', 'default': 'Unknown drink!' }; return (drinks[type] || drinks['default']); } var drink = getDrink(type); console.log(drink);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Switch
Object Literal

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 Benchmark Definition and individual test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches to determine the type of drink based on user input:

1. **String vs Object Literal**: This approach uses a simple string comparison (`switch(type)`) to determine the drink type.
2. **Object Literal**: This approach uses an object literal with key-value pairs to map drink types to their respective names.

**Options Comparison**

The two approaches have different pros and cons:

**Switch (String)**

Pros:

* Simple and easy to understand
* Fast execution, as it's a simple string comparison

Cons:

* Less scalable, as the number of cases increases
* May lead to typos or incorrect input, causing unexpected results

**Object Literal**

Pros:

* Scalable, as new drink types can be easily added without modifying existing code
* Robust and forgiving, as it handles missing keys by returning a default value

Cons:

* More complex and harder to understand for beginners
* May have slower execution due to object lookup

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the Benchmark Definition or test cases. However, the `getDrink` function in the Object Literal approach uses an object literal (`drinks`) to map drink types to their respective names.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. They focus on demonstrating different approaches to determine a drink type based on user input.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to design an alternative approach, some options could be:

* **Arrays**: Use an array of strings and use the `indexOf` method to find the matching drink type.
* **Functions**: Define separate functions for each drink type, which can then be called based on the user input.
* **Regular Expressions**: Use regular expressions to match the user input against predefined patterns.

However, these alternatives may have their own trade-offs and complexity considerations. The switch approach is simple and effective, while the object literal approach provides scalability and robustness.

Related benchmarks:

String vs Object Literal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Switch vs Object Literal

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Switch

Object Literal

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):