Benchmark: arr include vs endsWith with ext extraction

Script Preparation code:

var source = 'foo.jsx'
var arr = ['.ts', '.tsx', '.js', '.jsx']

Tests:

endsWith
var sourceWithoutExt = source.endsWith(".ts") || source.endsWith(".tsx") || source.endsWith(".js") || source.endsWith(".jsx")
arr
var ext = source.slice(source.lastIndexOf('.')) arr.includes(ext)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
endsWith
arr

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The test is designed to compare two approaches for checking if a file extension exists in an array: `endsWith` method (using regular expressions) versus `includes` method (using string slicing).

**Options Compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **`endsWith` Method**: This approach uses the `endsWith` method, which is a built-in JavaScript method that checks if a string ends with another string.
2. **`Includes` Method with String Slicing**: This approach uses the `includes` method to check if a file extension exists in an array, where the file extension is extracted from the source string using the `slice()` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`endsWith` Method**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code.
		+ Faster execution time since it's implemented in native code.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less efficient than the alternative approach for large strings or arrays, as it requires a regular expression engine to parse the string.
2. **`Includes` Method with String Slicing**:
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible and can handle cases where the file extension is not at the end of the string.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more code to extract the file extension using `slice()`, making it less concise and readable.
		+ May be slower execution time due to the overhead of parsing strings.

**Library Used**

The `includes` method is a built-in JavaScript method, which means no library is required for this test.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this test. The code is standard JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to avoid using the `endsWith` method, you can use other string comparison methods like:

* `indexOf()`: checks if a substring exists within another string.
* `lastIndexOf()`: finds the last occurrence of a character or substring in a string.
* A custom loop-based approach to check for file extension existence.

However, these alternatives would likely be slower and less efficient than the `endsWith` method.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is:
```javascript
var source = 'foo.jsx'
var arr = ['.ts', '.tsx', '.js', '.jsx']
```
This code defines a sample file name (`source`) with various extensions, and an array of possible file extensions (`arr`).

Related benchmarks:

arr include vs endsWith with ext extraction (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: endsWith vs arr

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

endsWith

arr

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):