Benchmark: Reverse and find vs rediceRight

Script Preparation code:

test = 'Low-life writer and unrepentant alcoholic Henry Chinaski was born to survive. After decades of slacking off at low-paying dead-end jobs, blowing his cash on booze and Women, and scrimping by in flea-bitten apartments, Chinaski sees his poetic star rising at last. Now, at fifty, he is reveling in his sudden rock-star life, running three hundred hangovers a year, and maintaining a sex life that would cripple Casanova'.split('');

Tests:

Reverse and find
test.reverse().find(s => s === 'f')
rediceRight
test.reduceRight((r, s) => (r || (s === 'f' ? s : r)), undefined)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Reverse and find
rediceRight

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 benchmark and its options.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasurThat.net. The tests measure the performance of two different approaches to find the first occurrence of the character 'f' in a reversed string:

1. **Reverse and Find**: This approach reverses the input string using the `reverse()` method, then uses the `find()` method with a callback function to search for the first occurrence of 'f'.
2. **Reduce Right**: This approach uses the `reduceRight()` method to iterate over the characters in reverse order (using the same reversed string) and checks if each character is equal to 'f'. If a match is found, it returns that value.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Reverse and Find
* Reduce Right

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Reverse and Find**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
		+ Easy to understand for developers familiar with JavaScript's `reverse()` and `find()` methods.
	* Cons:
		+ Reversing the entire string can be costly in terms of memory allocation and copying.
		+ The `find()` method may have additional overhead due to its callback-based nature.
2. **Reduce Right**:
	* Pros:
		+ Avoids creating an intermediate reversed copy, reducing memory allocation and copying overhead.
		+ Allows for parallel iteration over the characters in reverse order.
	* Cons:
		+ More complex implementation compared to Reverse and Find.
		+ May require additional support for iterator protocols (e.g., `Symbol.iterator`) and accumulator variables.

**Library and purpose**

In this benchmark, neither of the tested options explicitly uses a library. However, both approaches rely on built-in JavaScript methods:

1. **`reverse()`**: Returns a reversed copy of an array-like object.
2. **`find()`**: Finds the index of the first element in an array that satisfies the provided test.
3. **`reduceRight()`**: Applies a function to each element in an array, accumulating the result.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond built-in methods and basic syntax for defining functions and iterating over arrays.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other approaches, consider the following alternatives:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.slice()`**: Instead of reversing the entire string, you could use `slice(0, -1)` to create a reversed copy.
2. **Using `String.prototype.split()` and `Array.prototype.filter()`**: You could split the original string into an array, filter out non-'f' characters, and then join them back together.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional overhead or complexity, which might affect benchmark results.

Related benchmarks:

Reverse and find vs rediceRight (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Reverse and find vs rediceRight

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Reverse and find

rediceRight

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):