Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
var let const
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
var vs let vs const
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
var
var g = { e: [] } g.o = function(x) { g.e.push(...[1,2,3]) } g.o()
let
let g = { e: [] } g.o = function(x) { g.e.push(...[1,2,3]) } g.o()
const
const g = { e: [] } g.o = function(x) { g.e.push(...[1,2,3]) } g.o()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
var
let
const
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 provide an explanation of the provided benchmark, its test cases, and the options being compared. **Overview** The provided benchmark compares the performance of three JavaScript variables: `var`, `let`, and `const`. The benchmark is designed to measure how many times each variable's execution can be performed per second. **Script Preparation Code** The Script Preparation Code section is empty in this case, which means that no additional setup or initialization code is required before running the benchmark. This is a good practice, as it allows for a clean and fair comparison of the variables being tested. **Individual Test Cases** There are three test cases: 1. `var g = { e: [] }\r\ng.o = function(x) { g.e.push(...[1,2,3]) }\r\ng.o()` 2. `let g = { e: [] }\r\ng.o = function(x) { g.e.push(...[1,2,3]) }\r\ng.o()` 3. `const g = { e: [] }\r\ng.o = function(x) { g.e.push(...[1,2,3]) }\r\ng.o()` Each test case defines a variable `g` and a function `o`. The function `o` pushes an array of three elements onto the `e` property of the object `g`. **Options Being Compared** The options being compared are: * `var` * `let` * `const` These variables have different scoping rules, memory management behaviors, and execution characteristics. **Pros and Cons of Each Option** 1. **`var`** * Pros: + Faster lookup times for the variable in the scope chain. + Can lead to faster execution if the variable is accessed frequently. * Cons: + Has function scope, which means it can "escape" the current function and become a global variable if not properly scoped. + May lead to memory leaks if not properly garbage collected. 2. **`let`** * Pros: + Block scope, which ensures that variables are only accessible within the block they are declared in. + No "hoisting" issues like `var`. * Cons: + May lead to slower lookup times due to the additional scoping mechanism. 3. **`const`** * Pros: + Block scope, similar to `let`, but with a guarantee that the value will not be modified after declaration. + No "hoisting" issues like `var`. * Cons: + May lead to slower lookup times due to the additional scoping mechanism. **Library and Special JS Features** None of the provided test cases use any libraries or special JavaScript features. However, it's worth noting that some modern browsers have built-in features like WebAssembly or typed arrays that may affect performance. But these are not specific to the variables being compared here. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to add more variables to compare, such as `let` with a different scope block (e.g., `for...of`) or `const` with a reassigning behavior, you could modify the benchmark accordingly. Additionally, if you want to test the performance of different JavaScript engines or platforms, you could create additional benchmarks with different environments and configurations. Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and straightforward way to compare the performance of three fundamental JavaScript variables.
Related benchmarks:
var vs. const vs. let
var vs let vs const init
let vs const in tight loops
var vs const vs let
Reassigning let vs const
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?