Benchmark: console.log - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

1
console.log("foo bar");
2
console.log("foo bar");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	63895.7 Ops/sec
2	63132.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the execution time of simple `console.log` statements using different JavaScript engines (browsers).

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Console logging**: The test case uses a single `console.log` statement with a string literal `"foo bar"`. This is a basic operation that involves printing a message to the console.
2. **String interpolation**: The same test case also includes an interpolated string using template literals, i.e., `${"foo bar"}`.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Console logging**:
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward, widely supported by browsers.
	* Cons: May not be optimized for performance, as it involves printing a message to the console.
2. **String interpolation (template literals)**:
	* Pros: Can provide better performance and readability, especially for more complex string manipulation.
	* Cons: Requires support for template literals in the JavaScript engine.

**Library usage:**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

The only special feature used here is **template literals**, which allows you to embed expressions inside string literals using backticks (``) instead of single quotes. This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other alternatives:**

If the benchmark were to test other aspects, it could potentially include:

* Different logging mechanisms, such as `console.error` or `alert`.
* More complex string operations, like concatenation, slicing, or regular expressions.
* Variable assignments or function calls.
* Asynchronous code execution (e.g., using `setTimeout`).

However, the current focus on simple console logging with template literals is a good starting point for benchmarking JavaScript engine performance.

Related benchmarks:

console.log (version: 0)

console.log

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):