Benchmark: JS Tests - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/underscore@1.13.6/underscore-umd-min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,97];
var contains = function (array, item) {
    for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
        if (array[i] === item) {
            return true;
        }
    }
    return false;
                                     };

Tests:

vanilla
contains(primes, 79);
underscore
_.contains(primes, 79);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
vanilla
underscore

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 break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark named "JS Tests" with two test cases: "vanilla" and "underscore". The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript functions that perform a simple search operation in an array.

The `Script Preparation Code` section contains a script that defines an array `primes` and a function `contains`. This function takes an array and an item as arguments and returns a boolean value indicating whether the item is present in the array or not. The `Html Preparation Code` section includes a reference to the Underscore.js library, which provides a convenient way to implement the `contains` function using its `_contains` method.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Vanilla**: This test case uses only JavaScript's built-in `for` loop to search for an item in the `primes` array. The benchmark definition is `"contains(primes, 79);"`.
2. **Underscore**: This test case uses the Underscore.js library to implement the same search function using its `_contains` method. The benchmark definition is `"_.contains(primes, 79);"`.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: Using only JavaScript's built-in functions to perform the search.
2. **Underscore.js**: Using a third-party library that provides a convenient way to implement the search function.

**Pros and Cons**

**Vanilla JavaScript:**

Pros:

* No additional dependencies or overhead.
* Simple and easy to understand code.
* Can be used in any environment without relying on external libraries.

Cons:

* May require more manual effort and optimization for performance.
* May not provide the same level of conciseness and expressiveness as libraries like Underscore.js.

**Underscore.js:**

Pros:

* Provides a convenient way to implement common functions like `contains` using a single line of code.
* Can lead to more readable and maintainable code.
* Often includes optimized implementations that take advantage of browser features.

Cons:

* Introduces additional dependencies and overhead.
* May not be suitable for all use cases or environments.

**Library (Underscore.js)**

Underscore.js is a popular JavaScript library that provides a collection of functional programming helpers. Its `_contains` method is used to search for an item in an array, among other things. The library aims to provide a concise and expressive way to implement common functions, making the code more readable and maintainable.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. Both test cases use standard JavaScript constructs like `for` loops and function definitions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative implementations or optimizations for the search function, you could consider:

1. Using a more optimized data structure, such as a hash table or binary search tree.
2. Implementing a different algorithm, such as linear search or Bloom filter.
3. Utilizing browser-specific features like Web Workers or WebAssembly.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may require additional dependencies or expertise, and may not provide the same level of conciseness and expressiveness as libraries like Underscore.js.

Related benchmarks:

JS Tests (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanilla vs underscore

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

vanilla

underscore

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):