Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
gggggg
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
good vs bad
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
good
var list = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]; var nextListItem = function() { var item = list.pop(); if (item) { // process the list item... setTimeout( nextListItem, 0); } };
bad
var list = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]; var nextListItem = function() { var item = list.pop(); if (item) { // process the list item... nextListItem(); } };
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
good
bad
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 explanation into smaller parts for better understanding. **Benchmark Definition** The provided `json` represents a benchmark definition, which is a set of instructions that defines how to test a JavaScript code snippet. The keys in this object are: * `"Name"`: This field specifies a name for the benchmark. * `"Description"`: This field provides a description of the benchmark, but it's empty in this case. * `"Script Preparation Code"`: This field contains any necessary setup or initialization code that needs to be executed before running the benchmark. It's also empty in this case. * `"Html Preparation Code"`: This field specifies any additional HTML code that may need to be included for rendering and display purposes. **Options Compared** The two individual test cases (`"good"` and `"bad"`) differ only in how they call the `nextListItem` function. In the `"good"` case, it calls itself recursively using `setTimeout(nextListItem, 0);`, whereas in the `"bad"` case, it directly calls the same function with no delay. **Pros and Cons of Different Approaches** 1. **Recursive Call (Good Case)** * **Advantages:** * This approach can be more efficient because it uses a single `setTimeout` call to schedule the recursive execution. * It's a common pattern in JavaScript where functions are called recursively without any delay, which can be less efficient than using `setTimeout`. * **Disadvantages:** * If the function call is too expensive (e.g., due to network latency or other external factors), the initial execution may take longer because of the recursive overhead. 2. **Direct Call (Bad Case)** * **Advantages:** * This approach avoids the recursive overhead and can be more suitable when the function call is not too expensive. * **Disadvantages:** * It results in an additional `nextListItem` function call without any delay, which can lead to higher overhead than the recursive approach. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. The code snippet only demonstrates basic recursion and function calls. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to compare different approaches to scheduling function calls, here are some alternatives: * **Using `setInterval`**: Instead of using `setTimeout`, you could use `setInterval` to schedule the recursive execution. * **Using a queue data structure**: You could implement a queue data structure (e.g., an array or a linked list) to manage the function calls and avoid recursion. * **Using a task queue library**: There are several JavaScript libraries (e.g., Node.js's built-in `timers` module, libraries like `node-timer`, or third-party modules like `async-mutex`) that provide efficient ways to schedule tasks, including recursive function calls. These alternatives can help you explore different approaches to scheduling and executing function calls in a more efficient manner.
Related benchmarks:
Find_the_substring
dsteem vs steem-js round
Rafa speed test 1
Template Literals vs String Concatenation vs Replace
rtu5efdhju52y4rsgd
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?