Benchmark: map characters of strings

Tests:

split map
const string = 'asdf1234qwer'; const mapper = (char) => String.fromCharCode(char.charCodeAt(0)) string.split('').map(mapper).join('')
for loop
const string = 'asdf1234qwer'; const mapper = (char) => String.fromCharCode(char.charCodeAt(0)) let result = "" for(const char of string) { result += mapper(char) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
split map
for loop

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.

I'll break down the explanation into sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents a JavaScript microbenchmark. It contains four properties:

1. **Name**: The name of the benchmark.
2. **Description**: A brief description of the benchmark (in this case, none).
3. **Script Preparation Code**: Any additional code that needs to be executed before running the benchmark.
4. **Html Preparation Code**: Any HTML code that needs to be prepared before running the benchmark.

In this case, both script and html preparation codes are empty, indicating that no special setup is required.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two different approaches for mapping characters of strings:

1. **`map()` method**: This approach uses the `map()` method to apply a function to each character in the string. In this case, the function simply converts the character code to its corresponding ASCII value using `String.fromCharCode(char.charCodeAt(0))`.
2. **`for` loop**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over each character in the string and applies the same conversion logic.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`map()` method**:
	* Pros: More concise, readable, and efficient (since it avoids explicit looping).
	* Cons: May not be as performant for very large strings due to its overhead.
2. **`for` loop**:
	* Pros: Can be more control-oriented and might offer better performance for very large strings.
	* Cons: Less concise and readable, with more boilerplate code.

**Library Usage**

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

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on the comparison of two basic string mapping approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

For comparing different string mapping approaches, other alternatives could include:

* Using `reduce()` instead of `map()`
* Employing SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) instructions for parallel processing
* Utilizing Web Workers or other concurrency mechanisms to execute tasks in parallel
* Exploring different string iteration techniques, such as using `forEach()` or `entries()`

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approaches depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

map characters of strings (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: split map vs for loop

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

split map

for loop

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):