Benchmark: Hide phone func - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Case 1
const hidePhone = (phone) => { const middle = Math.floor(phone.length / 2); const halfOfHidden = middle / 3; const startHidden = Math.floor(middle - halfOfHidden); const finishHidden = Math.ceil(middle + halfOfHidden); return phone.substring(0, startHidden) + '*'.repeat(finishHidden - startHidden) + phone.substring(finishHidden); }; hidePhone('375292222222');
Case 2
const hidePhone = (phone) => { const middle = Math.floor(phone.length / 2); const halfOfHidden = middle / 3; const startHidden = middle - halfOfHidden; const finishHidden = middle + halfOfHidden; return [...phone].reduce((acc, symbol, index) => { if (index >= startHidden && index <= finishHidden) return `${acc}*`; return `${acc}${symbol}`; }, ''); }; hidePhone('375292222222');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Case 1
Case 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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different implementations of a function that hides a phone number in a string. The function takes a phone number as input and returns a new string with the phone number hidden by replacing a portion of it with asterisks (*).

**Options Compared**

There are two test cases:

1. **Case 1**: This implementation uses string slicing to extract the hidden part of the phone number:
```javascript
return phone.substring(0, startHidden) + '*'.repeat(finishHidden - startHidden) + phone.substring(finishHidden);
```
2. **Case 2**: This implementation uses array methods and `reduce()` to achieve the same result:
```javascript
return [...phone].reduce((acc, symbol, index) => {
    if (index >= startHidden && index <= finishHidden) return `${acc}*`;
    return `${acc}${symbol}`;
}, '');
```
**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Case 1:**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward implementation.
		+ Fast execution, as it only involves string slicing.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be suitable for very long phone numbers, as the substring method can create new strings, which can be memory-intensive.
2. **Case 2:**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient use of memory, as it avoids creating new strings.
		+ Can handle very long phone numbers without performance degradation.
	* Cons:
		+ More complex implementation, with the need to understand array methods and `reduce()`.
		+ May be slower than Case 1 due to the overhead of array processing.

**Library Used (None)**

Neither test case uses any external libraries. The implementations are self-contained within the provided JavaScript code.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)**

There are no special features or syntax used in these implementations. They rely on standard JavaScript concepts and methods.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark measures the performance of each implementation using a single test case, with the same input phone number ("375292222222"). This may not accurately represent real-world scenarios, where phone numbers can vary greatly in length and complexity.

To improve the accuracy of the benchmark, it would be beneficial to include additional test cases with different input phone numbers or variations in the implementation (e.g., using different string manipulation methods).

**Alternatives**

If you were to rewrite these implementations to measure performance, here are some alternative approaches:

1. **Use a more efficient string manipulation method**, such as using a regular expression to replace the hidden part of the phone number.
2. **Use a library or module specifically designed for string processing and formatting**, such as `string-promise` or `format`.
3. **Implement the function using a different programming paradigm**, such as using functional programming with higher-order functions.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional complexity and trade-offs, but can provide more accurate results or improved performance.

Related benchmarks:

Hide phone func (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Case 1 vs Case 2

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Case 1

Case 2

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):