Benchmark: Pusshhhhh - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var ys = [4, 5, 6];
var xs = [1, '2', '3'];

Tests:

For
for (let i = 0; i < xs.length; i++) { ys.push(xs[i]); } return ys;
Spread
return ys.push(...xs);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For
Spread

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 llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark test cases and break down what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is titled "Pusshhhhh" with no description provided. The script preparation code initializes two arrays: `ys` with integers `[4, 5, 6]` and `xs` with a mix of integers and strings `['2', '3']`.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **For**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the elements of array `xs` and push each element into array `ys`.
```javascript
for (let i = 0; i < xs.length; i++) {
  ys.push(xs[i]);
}
```
2. **Spread**: This test case utilizes the spread operator (`...`) to concatenate the elements of array `xs` onto the end of array `ys`. The resulting code is a one-liner:
```javascript
return ys.push(...xs);
```
**Latest Benchmark Result**

The benchmark results show two test runs:

1. **Spread**: Run on Chrome Mobile 108 (Android) with an execution speed of approximately 3,834,789.5 executions per second.
2. **For**: Run on the same browser and device with a significantly lower execution speed of around 843,497.8125 executions per second.

**What's Being Tested**

In this benchmark, we're comparing two different approaches to concatenating arrays:

* The traditional `for` loop approach (used in the "For" test case)
* The spread operator (`...`) approach (used in the "Spread" test case)

**Comparison of Options**

Here are some key points to consider when choosing between these two approaches:

* **Performance**: As shown by the benchmark results, the spread operator approach is significantly faster than the traditional `for` loop approach.
* **Code Readability**: The spread operator approach is more concise and easier to read, especially for simple array concatenations.
* **Browser Support**: The spread operator was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), so it's supported by modern browsers. However, older browsers might not support this feature.

**Other Considerations**

When deciding which approach to use:

* If you need to concatenate arrays with a large number of elements, the spread operator is likely a better choice due to its performance advantages.
* If you're working on an old project or using an older browser, stick with the traditional `for` loop approach for compatibility reasons.

**Library and Special JS Feature/Syntax**

In this benchmark:

* There's no external library used; only plain JavaScript code.
* The spread operator (`...`) is a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allows array concatenation using the `...` syntax.

Related benchmarks:

Pusshhhhh (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For vs Spread

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For

Spread

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):