Benchmark: array at vs classic

Script Preparation code:


var arr = ['', '', ''];

Tests:

1
var t = arr.at(2)
2
var t = arr[2]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2

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 the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two ways to access an element at a specific index in an array: `arr.at(2)` and `arr[2]`. The test case uses a simple array `var arr = ['', '', ''];` defined in the script preparation code.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Array.prototype.at() method**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES10), this method provides a safer and more efficient way to access an element at a specific index in an array.
2. **Array indexing with square brackets (`arr[2]`)**: This is the traditional way of accessing an element at a specific index in an array.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Array.prototype.at() method**:
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient and faster compared to traditional indexing.
		+ Provides a safer way to access elements, as it checks for null or undefined values.
	* Cons:
		+ Only available in ECMAScript 2019 (ES10) and later versions.
		+ May not be supported by older browsers or engines.
2. **Array indexing with square brackets (`arr[2]`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported by older browsers and engines.
		+ Simpler syntax.
	* Cons:
		+ Less efficient and slower compared to the `at()` method.
		+ May throw errors if the index is out of bounds.

**Library: null**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

The benchmark only uses standard JavaScript syntax and does not utilize any special features like async/await, Promises, or closures.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to test other array methods or variations of the `at()` method, MeasureThat.net allows you to create custom benchmarks. Some examples include:

* Using `arr[Symbol.at]` (ES6) for array accessor properties
* Comparing different indexing styles, such as `arr[2 + 0]`, `arr[2 - 0]`, or `arr[++2]`
* Testing the performance of other array methods, like `Array.prototype.indexOf()` or `Array.prototype.includes()`

Feel free to experiment with these alternatives and create new benchmarks on MeasureThat.net!

Related benchmarks:

array at vs classic (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

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):