Benchmark: bonerrrrrr - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Array.of
const x = Array.of(1, "2")
literal
const x = [1, "2"]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.of
literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 17_2_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.2 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 17 on iOS 17.2.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.of	11121797.0 Ops/sec
literal	492643648.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the test cases and explore what's being tested.

**Benchmarking Goals:**
The primary goal of these tests is to compare the performance of two approaches for creating an array in JavaScript:

1. `Array.of()`
2. Literal syntax (i.e., `[]` with elements)

**Options Compared:**

* **Array.of():** Uses the `Array.of()` method to create an array from a variable number of arguments.
* **Literal Syntax:** Creates an array using the square bracket notation (`[]`) followed by the elements.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Array.of():**
	+ Pros:
		- More explicit and readable, especially for large arrays or multiple elements.
		- Can be used with named parameters, making it more flexible.
	+ Cons:
		- May incur a performance penalty due to the overhead of calling an additional method.
		- Some older browsers may not support `Array.of()`, so this option might be skipped on those platforms.
* **Literal Syntax:**
	+ Pros:
		- Very fast, as it's just a simple array creation operation without any function calls or method invocations.
		- Widely supported across modern browsers and Node.js versions.
	+ Cons:
		- Less readable, especially for large arrays or complex element expressions.

**Library Used:**
In the provided benchmark test cases, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, if you were to use a library like Lodash (a popular utility belt for JavaScript), it might provide an alternative implementation of array creation using `Array.of()`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these tests. The focus is solely on comparing two common approaches for creating arrays.

**Other Alternatives:**

* For creating arrays, other alternatives to `Array.of()` and literal syntax might include:
	+ Using the spread operator (`...`) with an array literal (e.g., `[...array]`)
	+ Using the `map()` function with a single-element callback (e.g., `new Array(array.length).fill(element)`)
	+ Using the `concat()` method or `push()` methods with an initial array
* For modern browsers and Node.js versions, these alternatives might not provide significant performance differences.

Keep in mind that performance benchmarks can be highly dependent on specific use cases and environments. The results from MeasureThat.net might vary depending on the specific browser, device, or platform being tested.

Related benchmarks:

bonerrrrrr (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.of vs literal

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Array.of

literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):