Benchmark: reverse words - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var str = "This is an example!";

Tests:

Partial chaining
var reversed = str.split(' ').map( str => str.split('').reverse().join('') ).join(' ');
Full chaining
var reversed = str.split("").reverse().join("").split(" ").reverse().join(" ");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Partial chaining
Full chaining

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript code that reverses words in a string. The script preparation code initializes a string variable `str` with the value `"This is an example!"`. There are two test cases: "Partial chaining" and "Full chaining".

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two different approaches are being compared:

1. **Partial Chaining**: This approach involves splitting the input string into words using `split(' ')`, reversing each word individually by splitting the characters of the word into an array, reversing the array, and joining it back together with `join('')`. The reversed words are then joined back together to form the final result.
2. **Full Chaining**: This approach involves splitting the input string into individual characters using `split('')`, reversing the entire string by calling `reverse()` on the resulting array of characters, and then joining the characters back together with spaces in between using `join('')`. The resulting string is then split into words again using `split(' ')` and reversed as before.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **Partial Chaining**
	+ Pros:
		- More intuitive and easier to understand, especially for developers familiar with working with strings.
		- Avoids the overhead of reversing an entire string at once.
	+ Cons:
		- May be slower due to the additional intermediate steps (e.g., creating arrays and joining strings).
* **Full Chaining**
	+ Pros:
		- Can potentially be faster because it reverses the entire string at once, avoiding intermediate steps.
	+ Cons:
		- Less intuitive and more complex to understand, especially for developers new to JavaScript.

**Library Use**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, some standard JavaScript functions are used, such as `split()`, `map()`, `join()`, and `reverse()`.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There's one notable feature used in this benchmark: the use of arrow functions (`str => ...`). Arrow functions were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provide a concise way to define small, single-expression functions. They are often used for shorter functions that don't require their own scope.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to reversing words in a string might include:

* Using regular expressions: `/[^a-zA-Z]+/g` to match one or more non-alphabetic characters and replace them with an empty string.
* Utilizing built-in methods like `replace()` and `split()`: `"".replace(/[^\w\s]/gi, '')".split(' ').map(word => word.split('').reverse().join('')).join(' ')`.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements of your project and your personal preference as a developer.

Related benchmarks:

reverse words (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Partial chaining vs Full chaining

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Partial chaining

Full chaining

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):