Benchmark: loopsies - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

const length = 1000;

function rawFor () {
	for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
    	console.log('rawrawraw');
    }
}

function fancyFor () {
	Array(length).fill(null).forEach(i => console.log('rawrawraw'));
}

Tests:

rawFor
rawFor()
fancyFor
fancyFor()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
rawFor
fancyFor

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net!

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition JSON represents two test cases: `rawFor()` and `fancyFor()`. The JSON contains three essential elements:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This is the JavaScript code that is executed before running each test case. In this case, both scripts use a `length` variable set to 1000. The `rawFor()` function uses a traditional `for` loop, while the `fancyFor()` function uses the `Array.prototype.fill()` method and `forEach()`.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This is not used in this benchmark definition.
3. **Test Name**: A human-readable name for each test case.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two different approaches are being compared:

1. **Traditional Loop (`rawFor()`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to understand and implement.
		+ Can be optimized using techniques like loop unrolling or caching.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of incrementing the loop counter and checking the condition.
2. **Modern Array Method (`fancyFor()`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster due to the use of optimized array methods.
		+ Reduces memory allocation and garbage collection overhead.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more expertise in JavaScript and its built-in methods.

**Library**

There is no external library used in this benchmark. The `Array.prototype.fill()` method is a built-in part of the JavaScript language.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are two notable features:

1. **Arrow Functions**: Both scripts use arrow functions (`=>`) which provide an alternative to traditional function declarations.
2. **Template Literals**: Although not used directly in this benchmark, template literals (`\r\n`) can be useful for concatenating strings.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create a new benchmark with different test cases or options, some alternatives might include:

* Using `for...of` loops instead of traditional `for` loops
* Implementing custom loop optimization techniques (e.g., caching, unrolling)
* Comparing performance with other JavaScript engines or platforms
* Adding more complex scenarios, such as dealing with edge cases or large datasets

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

Here's the prepared code for each test case:
```javascript
// rawFor()
function rawFor() {
  for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
    console.log('rawrawraw');
  }
}

// fancyFor()
function fancyFor() {
  Array(length).fill(null).forEach(i => console.log('rawrawraw'));
}
```

Keep in mind that this is just a basic explanation, and there are many nuances to JavaScript performance optimization. If you're interested in exploring more advanced topics or using MeasureThat.net for your own benchmarking needs, feel free to ask!

Related benchmarks:

loopsies (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: rawFor vs fancyFor

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

rawFor

fancyFor

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):