Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
ECMA .flat()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
ECMA .flat() vs ECMA .flat()2
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = Array(5000).fill([0, [1], 2]);
Tests:
ECMA .flat()
function flatten(list) { return list.flat(9999) } flatten(arr);
ECMA .flat()2
function flatten(list) { return list.flat(9999) } flatten(arr);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
ECMA .flat()
ECMA .flat()2
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **What is tested?** The provided benchmark tests the performance of the `flat()` method in JavaScript, which is a part of the ECMAScript standard (ECMA). The `flat()` method takes an array and recursively flattens it, returning a new array with all sub-arrays flattened. **Options compared:** In this benchmark, two different approaches are compared: 1. **Using a large depth value (`9999`)**: This option tests the performance of the `flat()` method when using a very large depth value to flatten the array. This is likely used to test the method's ability to handle deep arrays. 2. **Using an incremental depth value (`9999` incrementing by 1 each time)**: This option tests the performance of the `flat()` method as it increments the depth value, which may be useful for testing optimization or algorithmic improvements. **Pros and cons of each approach:** * Using a large depth value: + Pros: Simple to implement, easy to understand, and provides a clear benchmarking scenario. + Cons: May not accurately represent real-world usage patterns, as most use cases don't require such deep arrays. * Using an incremental depth value: + Pros: More realistic representation of potential performance issues or optimization opportunities in real-world scenarios. + Cons: More complex to implement and understand, which may lead to higher chances of errors or misinterpretation. **Library usage:** The benchmark uses the `Array` object, which is a built-in JavaScript library. The `fill()` method used to create the large array is also a part of the JavaScript standard library. **Special JS features or syntax:** There are no specific special features or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript has many advanced features and language-specific constructs (e.g., async/await, destructuring, or arrow functions) that can impact performance in certain scenarios. But in this particular benchmark, these aspects are not used. **Other alternatives:** There are other benchmarks available on MeasureThat.net for various JavaScript-related topics. Some examples include: * ECMAScript syntax and semantics (e.g., array, object, function, and regular expression literals) * Performance comparisons between different browsers or platforms * Testing of specific libraries or frameworks (e.g., React, Angular, or Vue.js) Keep in mind that MeasureThat.net is a crowdsourced benchmarking platform, so the availability and focus of benchmarks can vary depending on community interest and contributions.
Related benchmarks:
Stelian
test test test
flat() vs flatMap()
flatMap vs flat+map 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?