Benchmark: manual chars vs char code

Tests:

manual chars
function wordToNums(word) { const alpha = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"; return word.split("").map((letter) => alpha.indexOf(letter.toLowerCase()) + 1).join(" "); } console.log(wordToNums("Elzero"));
char code
function wordToNums(word) { return word.split("").map((letter) => letter.toLowerCase().charCodeAt(0) - 96).join(" "); } console.log(wordToNums("Elzero"));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
manual chars
char code

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/121.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
manual chars	162900.9 Ops/sec
char code	166879.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to converting character strings into numerical values, specifically word-to-number conversions for words like "Elzero".

**Approach 1: Manual Characters**
The first test case, labeled as "manual chars", uses a string of lowercase alphabet characters (`"abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz"`). It splits the input word into individual letters and maps each letter to its corresponding alphabetical order (A=1, B=2, ..., Z=26) using the `indexOf` method. The results are then joined back together with spaces.

**Approach 2: Character Code**
The second test case, labeled as "char code", uses a more concise approach by directly mapping each letter to its ASCII character code (A=65, B=66, ..., Z=90). It converts the input word to lowercase and subtracts 96 from each letter's code to get the desired numerical value.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Manual Characters:**
	+ Pros: Easy to understand and implement, as it relies on basic string manipulation methods.
	+ Cons: Less efficient due to the use of `indexOf`, which has a higher overhead compared to direct arithmetic operations.
* **Character Code:**
	+ Pros: More efficient, as it directly uses ASCII codes without the need for additional calculations or string manipulation methods.
	+ Cons: Requires a basic understanding of ASCII codes and character encoding.

In general, the Character Code approach is expected to perform better due to its efficiency advantages. However, both approaches are relatively simple and easy to understand, making them suitable for educational purposes.

**Library:**
Neither test case uses any external libraries beyond the built-in JavaScript `String` methods. The only library-like behavior is when using ASCII codes, which can be considered a part of the standard JavaScript environment.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark, as both approaches rely on basic string manipulation and arithmetic operations.

**Other Alternatives:**
For comparison purposes, other alternatives could include:

* Using Unicode codes instead of ASCII codes
* Employing more advanced string manipulation methods, such as using regular expressions
* Utilizing specialized libraries or modules for numerical computations (e.g., `Math.js`)

Keep in mind that the primary goal of this benchmark is to compare two specific approaches, rather than exploring alternative solutions.

Related benchmarks:

manual chars vs char code (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: manual chars vs char code

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

manual chars

char code

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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