Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
performance-test-lc-kb
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
case1 vs case2
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
case1
const test = [{ count: 1 }, { count: 2}, {count: 3}]; test.find(({ count }) => count === 3);
case2
const test = [{ count: 1 }, { count: 2}, {count: 3}]; test.find(item => item.count === 3);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
case1
case2
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):
I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed. **Benchmark Overview** MeasureThat.net is a platform for JavaScript microbenchmarks, allowing users to create and run tests on their scripts. The benchmark in question measures the performance of two test cases: `case1` and `case2`. **Test Cases** The two test cases are: 1. **Case 1**: `const test = [{ count: 1 }, { count: 2}, {count: 3}];\r\ntest.find(({ count }) => count === 3);` 2. **Case 2**: `const test = [{ count: 1 }, { count: 2}, {count: 3}];\r\ntest.find(item => item.count === 3);` Both test cases create an array of objects with a single property called `count` and then use the `find()` method to search for an object where `count` equals 3. **Comparison** The two test cases differ in how they define the callback function passed to `find()`. In **Case 1**, the callback function uses the old syntax with parentheses: `(obj) => obj.count === 3`. In **Case 2**, it uses the arrow function syntax with the `=>` operator: `item => item.count === 3`. **Pros and Cons** The choice between these two approaches has implications for readability, maintainability, and performance. * **Arrow Function Syntax**: Using arrow functions provides a more concise way to define small, single-expression callback functions. It's also often preferred in modern JavaScript development due to its simplicity and reduced verbosity. + Pros: More readable, less verbose. + Cons: May be slower due to the implicit `this` context resolution. * **Old Syntax with Parentheses**: Using the old syntax provides a more explicit way to define callback functions. It can also make it easier for developers to understand the intent of the code, especially in complex scenarios. + Pros: More explicit, potentially faster due to reduced overhead. + Cons: Less readable, more verbose. **Library and Special JS Feature** In this benchmark, there is no library being used explicitly. However, `find()` is a built-in method on arrays in JavaScript, so no special feature or syntax needs to be mentioned for its usage. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to write the test cases differently, here are some alternatives: * Use a different iteration method, such as `forEach()`, `for...of`, or `while`. * Use a different data structure, like an object with array-like properties. * Introduce additional complexity by iterating over the array in reverse order or using a custom iterator. In summary, MeasureThat.net is a platform for comparing JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark tests two test cases that use the `find()` method on arrays to search for specific objects. While both approaches are valid, arrow functions provide more conciseness and readability, while old syntax with parentheses may offer better performance.
Related benchmarks:
Powers of two
Powers of two
Powers of two
Powers of two
Comparing 3 small hash types made in javascript
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?