Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
charCodeAt vs codePointAt short string
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
charCodeAt vs codePointAt
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var str = "abcde"
Tests:
charCodeAt
str.charCodeAt(3)
codePointAt
str.codePointAt(3)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
charCodeAt
codePointAt
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark measures the performance difference between using `charCodeAt` and `codePointAt` on a short string, specifically on the character at index 3 (`"abcde"`). **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **`charCodeAt(3)`**: This method returns an integer representing the Unicode code point for the character at index 3 in the string. 2. **`codePointAt(3)`**: This method also returns an integer representing the Unicode code point for the character at index 3 in the string, but with some additional features compared to `charCodeAt`. **Pros and Cons** - **`charCodeAt`:** + Pros: - Widely supported by most browsers. - Generally faster since it only returns a single integer value. + Cons: - Does not handle Unicode surrogate pairs correctly, which can lead to incorrect results for some characters. - Does not provide any additional information about the character, such as its name or Unicode category. - **`codePointAt`:** + Pros: - Correctly handles Unicode surrogate pairs and provides more accurate results. - Provides additional information about the character, such as its name and Unicode category. + Cons: - Less widely supported by older browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer). - Generally slower since it returns a more complex data type (an integer with some additional metadata). **Library** Neither `charCodeAt` nor `codePointAt` uses any external libraries. They are both native JavaScript methods. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark, other than the use of Unicode escape sequences (`\u{...}`) to represent characters in the string. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may optimize certain Unicode-related operations using internal algorithms, which could affect the performance results. **Alternative Approaches** If you were to rewrite this benchmark, you might consider adding additional test cases to cover other aspects of Unicode handling, such as: * Using `codePointAt` with non-surrogate pairs * Comparing performance on different platforms or devices (e.g., mobile vs. desktop) * Including older browsers in the benchmark for a more comprehensive comparison Keep in mind that these additions would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and test cases, but could provide a more complete picture of Unicode handling performance in JavaScript.
Related benchmarks:
char index vs charAt()
char index vs charAt() for non-zero index
char index vs charAt() for the first character
charCodeAt vs codePointAt
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?