Benchmark: Some vs. includes ABCX

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  hasZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000));
  withoutZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) + 1)
}

Tests:

Array.some
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.map(a => a).some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.map(a => a).some(v => v === 0);
Array.includes
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.map(a => a).includes(0) : withoutZero.map(a => a).includes(0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.some
Array.includes

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 break down the provided benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to check if an array contains a specific value: `some()` and `includes()`. Both methods are used on identical arrays, but one includes zero in the array, while the other does not.

**Script Preparation Code**

This code generates two identical arrays:

* `hasZero`: contains 10,000 random numbers between 0 and 1000, inclusive.
* `withoutZero`: contains 10,000 random numbers between 0 and 1000, but with an additional 1 in each number (i.e., it's equivalent to `hasZero`, but shifted by 1).

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Array.some**: This test case uses the `some()` method to check if at least one element in the array is zero.
2. **Array.includes**: This test case uses the `includes()` method to check if zero is present in the array.

**Options Compared**

The two methods are compared, which suggests that there might be a trade-off between performance and readability. The main difference between these two methods lies in their behavior when the array is empty:

* `some()`: Returns true as soon as it finds an element that satisfies the callback function (i.e., zero). If the array is empty, it returns false.
* `includes()`: Throws a TypeError if the array is empty, which might be considered a performance overhead.

**Pros and Cons**

Pros of using `some()`:

* Faster for large arrays since it stops iterating as soon as it finds an element that satisfies the callback function.
* Less memory-intensive since it doesn't require creating an intermediate result set.

Cons of using `some()`:

* Might be less intuitive or readable, especially for developers who are not familiar with this method.
* Throws a TypeError if the array is empty, which might be unexpected behavior.

Pros of using `includes()`:

* More intuitive and readable, as it explicitly states what it's doing (i.e., checking if zero is present in the array).
* Does not throw an error when the array is empty; instead, it returns false.

Cons of using `includes()`:

* Might be slower for large arrays since it needs to iterate over the entire array.
* Requires creating an intermediate result set, which can be memory-intensive.

**Library and Purpose**

Neither `some()` nor `includes()` uses a library. They are native JavaScript methods built into the language.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special feature or syntax being tested here. The test cases focus solely on comparing two different array iteration methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative methods to check if an array contains a specific value, you could consider:

* Using `forEach()` and checking the value of each element: This would require iterating over the entire array.
* Using a custom function or regular expression: These approaches might be more readable but could also introduce performance overhead.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are not directly comparable to `some()` and `includes()`, as they offer different trade-offs between readability, performance, and memory usage.

Related benchmarks:

Some vs. includes ABCX (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.some vs Array.includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.includes

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):