Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Testing Here
(version: 0)
Testing Here
Comparing performance of:
First vs Two
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
const i = 12345678
Tests:
First
i.toString()
Two
"123"
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
First
Two
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 MeasureThat.net and understand what's being tested in this benchmark. **What is being tested?** MeasureThat.net is testing two JavaScript expressions: `i.toString()` and a string literal `"123"`. The goal is to compare how quickly these two expressions can be executed by different browsers on various devices. **Options compared** The main options being compared are: 1. **String concatenation vs. toString()**: The first test case, "First", uses the `toString()` method to convert an integer to a string, while the second test case, "Two", uses a string literal. This comparison is likely to examine how these two approaches differ in terms of performance and efficiency. 2. **Primitive value vs. wrapper object**: In JavaScript, numbers (like `i`) are primitive values that don't have their own prototype chain. However, when you call `toString()` on a number, it creates a new wrapper object. This comparison is testing whether the creation of this wrapper object has any noticeable impact on performance. **Pros and cons of each approach** 1. **String concatenation**: * Pros: Simple and straightforward. * Cons: Can lead to slower performance due to the creation of intermediate strings. 2. **toString() method**: * Pros: Can provide a more elegant solution for converting numbers to strings, as it avoids the need for explicit string concatenation. * Cons: Creates a new wrapper object, which may incur additional overhead. **Library usage** None of the test cases use any external libraries that are not part of the JavaScript standard library. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net might be using some internal libraries or optimizations under the hood to improve benchmark performance. **Special JS features or syntax** This benchmark doesn't appear to use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is commonly supported in modern browsers. **Other alternatives** If you were to rewrite these benchmarks, here are some alternative approaches you could consider: * **Using a more efficient string representation**: Instead of using `toString()` on an integer, you could use the `Buffer` API to convert it to a binary string. * **Using a more efficient data structure**: If the benchmark is focused on comparing the performance of different data structures, you might consider using objects or arrays instead of primitive values. * **Adding more test cases**: You could add additional test cases to compare other JavaScript expressions or functions that are relevant to your specific use case. Keep in mind that these alternatives would depend on the specific requirements and goals of your benchmarking effort.
Related benchmarks:
Is odd
somevfind
Is odd (large)
Is odd (large float)
multiplication vs parseInt vs Number vs bitwise vs unary
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?