Benchmark: distructing vs no-distructing 2

Tests:

no distructing
const countries = [ { name: "Afghanistan", code: "AF" }, { name: "Åland Islands", code: "AX" }, { name: "Albania", code: "AL" }, { name: "Algeria", code: "DZ" }, { name: "American Samoa", code: "AS" }, { name: "AndorrA", code: "AD" }, { name: "Angola", code: "AO" }, { name: "Anguilla", code: "AI" }, { name: "Antarctica", code: "AQ" }, { name: "Antigua and Barbuda", code: "AG" }, { name: "Argentina", code: "AR" }, { name: "Armenia", code: "AM" }, { name: "Aruba", code: "AW" }, { name: "Australia", code: "AU" }, { name: "Austria", code: "AT" }, { name: "Azerbaijan", code: "AZ" } ] countries.map(country => { const { code, name } = country; return name + code; });
distructing
const countries = [ { name: "Afghanistan", code: "AF" }, { name: "Åland Islands", code: "AX" }, { name: "Albania", code: "AL" }, { name: "Algeria", code: "DZ" }, { name: "American Samoa", code: "AS" }, { name: "AndorrA", code: "AD" }, { name: "Angola", code: "AO" }, { name: "Anguilla", code: "AI" }, { name: "Antarctica", code: "AQ" }, { name: "Antigua and Barbuda", code: "AG" }, { name: "Argentina", code: "AR" }, { name: "Armenia", code: "AM" }, { name: "Aruba", code: "AW" }, { name: "Australia", code: "AU" }, { name: "Austria", code: "AT" }, { name: "Azerbaijan", code: "AZ" } ] countries.map(({ name, code }) => { return name + code; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
no distructing
distructing

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.

Measuring the performance difference between using destructuring assignment (`({ name, code }) => { return name + code; }`) and not using it in an array map function is an interesting test case.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark definition describes two tests:

1. "distrustucting": This test uses destructuring assignment in the `map` function to iterate over the `countries` array.
2. "no distructuring": This test does not use destructuring assignment and instead accesses each object's properties directly using dot notation (`country.name + country.code`) in the `map` function.

**Options Compared:**
The two options being compared are:

1. Destructuring assignment: A more modern and concise way of accessing an object's properties.
2. Dot notation: An older, more verbose way of accessing an object's properties.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Destructuring Assignment (Pro):**
	+ More concise and readable code.
	+ Reduces the risk of typos when accessing property names.
	+ Can improve code maintainability and reduce errors.
* **Dot Notation (Con):**
	+ More verbose and harder to read.
	+ Increases the risk of typos and errors.

However, it's worth noting that in this specific test case, the difference between the two approaches may be negligible. The `map` function is designed to execute the provided callback for each element in the array, and the performance difference between the two approaches will likely be very small.

**Library Used:**
There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's possible that a custom function or utility is being used to simplify the code.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
This test case demonstrates the use of destructuring assignment and dot notation in modern JavaScript. Destructuring assignment was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as part of the Object Rest/Spread Syntax feature.

Related benchmarks:

distructing vs no-distructing 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: no distructing vs distructing

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

no distructing

distructing

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):