Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Time to string representations
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
first vs second vs third
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
first
const minutes = 1; const seconds = 2; const other = `${`0${minutes}`.slice(-2)}:${`0${seconds}`.slice(-2)}`
second
const minutes = 1; const seconds = 2; const other = `${String(seconds).length === 1 ? `0${seconds}` : seconds}:${String(minutes).length === 1 ? `0${minutes}` : minutes}`;
third
const minutes = 1; const seconds = 2; let showSeconds = seconds && seconds < 10 ? `0${seconds}` : seconds; let showMinutes = minutes && minutes < 10 ? `0${minutes}` : minutes; if (seconds === 0) showSeconds = '00'; if (minutes === 0) showMinutes = '00'; const other = `${showMinutes}:${showSeconds}`
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
first
second
third
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):
**Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, where users can create and run tests to measure the performance of different code snippets. The benchmark is focused on comparing the time it takes to generate string representations in various ways. **Options Compared** There are three test cases: 1. **First**: Uses template literals (`${}`) with the `slice()` method to extract the last two digits from a number. 2. **Second**: Uses conditional statements to check if the length of a number is less than 2, and if so, prefixes it with a '0'. 3. **Third**: Uses conditional statements to check if the value of a variable is greater than 9, and if not, prefixes it with a '0', similar to the second test case. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Template Literals (First)**: * Pros: Concise, readable, and easy to maintain. * Cons: May incur additional overhead due to string concatenation. 2. **Conditional Statements (Second and Third)**: * Pros: More explicit, easier to understand, and potentially more efficient since it avoids unnecessary string creation. * Cons: May be less concise and harder to read than template literals. **Other Considerations** When using template literals like in the first test case, it's essential to consider the overhead of creating a new string by concatenating elements. In contrast, conditional statements like in the second and third test cases may incur additional overhead due to the repeated checks. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** The `slice()` method is used in the template literal approach, which is a built-in JavaScript function that extracts a subset of characters from a string. This approach is concise but may be less efficient than using conditional statements. **Library Usage** There are no libraries mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. **Alternative Approaches** Other ways to generate string representations could include: * Using `String.prototype.padStart()` or `String.prototype.padEnd()` * Using regular expressions to extract the last digits * Using a custom function or utility library for number formatting However, these alternatives might not be as straightforward to implement and may not be as efficient as the original code snippets.
Related benchmarks:
indexOf / includes
TextEncoder vs String hash v2
charAt vs substr vs substring vs slice test
Intl.Collator.compare vs String.prototype.localeCompare (v8 ASCII fast path)
toBase62String
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?