Benchmark: 【JiangNanGame】traditional swap vs destructuring assignment swap

Script Preparation code:

var a = 1;
var b = 2;

Tests:

traditional swap
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { let t = a; a = b; b = t; }
destructuring assignment swap
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { [a, b] = [b, a]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
traditional swap
destructuring assignment swap

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 dive into explaining the provided benchmark.

**Overview**
-----------------

The benchmark compares two approaches to swapping values in JavaScript: traditional swapping using a temporary variable and destructuring assignment swapping. The goal is to determine which approach is faster for this specific use case.

**Options being compared**
-------------------------

There are two options being compared:

1. **Traditional Swap**: This approach uses a temporary variable to swap the values of `a` and `b`. The syntax is:
```javascript
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
    let t = a;
    a = b;
    b = t;
}
```
2. **Destructuring Assignment Swap**: This approach uses destructuring assignment to swap the values of `a` and `b`. The syntax is:
```javascript
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
    [a, b] = [b, a];
}
```
**Pros and Cons**
------------------

### Traditional Swap

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* Works with any data type

Cons:

* Requires an extra variable (temporary)
* Can be slower due to the temporary allocation and assignment

### Destructuring Assignment Swap

Pros:

* More concise and readable
* Eliminates the need for a temporary variable
* Faster execution, as it avoids the overhead of allocating and assigning a new value

Cons:

* Limited to primitive values (numbers, strings, etc.) due to type coercion
* May have performance implications if not optimized correctly

**Library usage**
-----------------

None of the test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax**
--------------------------------

The `let` keyword with the assignment operator (`=`) is used in both benchmark definitions. This is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). The `let` keyword declares a block-scope variable, and the assignment operator (`=`) assigns a value to that variable.

**Other alternatives**
---------------------

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, here are some options:

1. **Using an array**: You could create an array with two elements, swap their indices using array destructuring or slicing, and then assign the swapped values back to `a` and `b`.
```javascript
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
    const arr = [a, b];
    [arr[0], arr[1]] = [arr[1], arr[0]];
    a = arr[0];
    b = arr[1];
}
```
2. **Using an object**: You could create an object with two properties, swap the values using object destructuring or assignment, and then assign the swapped values back to `a` and `b`.
```javascript
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
    const obj = { a: a, b: b };
    [obj.a, obj.b] = [obj.b, obj.a];
    a = obj.a;
    b = obj.b;
}
```
Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as concise or readable as the original benchmark definitions.

Related benchmarks:

【JiangNanGame】traditional swap vs destructuring assignment swap (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: traditional swap vs destructuring assignment swap

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

traditional swap

destructuring assignment swap

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):