Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
ehandling
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
basic vs old
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
basic
function test() { if(Math.random() < 0.4) throw 0; } async function main() { try{ test(); }catch(e){ } } main()
old
async function test() { if(Math.random() < 0.4) throw 0; } async function main() { try{ await test(); }catch(e){ } } main()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
basic
old
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):
I'd be happy to explain the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is a JSON object that provides metadata about the test case, including its name and description. In this case, there is no description provided. The script preparation code and HTML preparation code are also not specified. **Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: "basic" and "old". Both test cases measure the performance of a JavaScript function that throws an error 40% of the time. **Test Case "basic"** The first test case, "basic", is a synchronous function. It defines a `test` function that throws an error with probability 0.4 using `Math.random()`. The `main` function calls the `test` function and catches any errors that are thrown. In this test case, JavaScript's built-in error handling mechanism is used to catch exceptions. **Test Case "old"** The second test case, "old", is an asynchronous function. It also defines a `test` function that throws an error with probability 0.4 using `Math.random()`. However, in this case, the `main` function uses the `await` keyword to wait for the completion of the `test` function. In this test case, JavaScript's built-in async/await syntax is used to handle asynchronous functions. **Library: `Math.random()`** The `Math.random()` function is a built-in JavaScript library that generates a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive). This function is used in both test cases to generate the probability for throwing an error. **Special JS Feature/Syntax: Async/Await** Both test cases use async/await syntax, which is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2017. It allows developers to write asynchronous code that is easier to read and maintain. The "old" test case uses this feature explicitly with the `await` keyword. **Other Considerations** - **Error Handling:** Both test cases demonstrate how JavaScript handles errors using try-catch blocks. - **Synchronous vs Asynchronous Code:** The two test cases contrast synchronous code (basic) with asynchronous code (old), highlighting the importance of handling asynchronous operations correctly. - **Performance Comparison:** By running these tests, users can compare the performance of their JavaScript engine on different platforms and devices. **Alternatives** There are several other JavaScript microbenchmarks that you can use to test your JavaScript engine's performance. Some examples include: 1. **jsPerf.com**: A popular online tool for benchmarking JavaScript performance. 2. **Benchmark.js**: An open-source library for creating benchmarks in Node.js and web browsers. 3. **Benchpress.js**: Another open-source library for creating benchmarks in Node.js. These alternatives provide similar functionality to MeasureThat.net, allowing users to create and run their own JavaScript microbenchmarks.
Related benchmarks:
IndexOf vs Includes in Larger string
Test JS endswith implementation2
Data duplication methods
TextEncoder.encode() vs encodeURIComponent
String extracting
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?