Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
trigata
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
native vs alt
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function rand(min, max) { return Math.floor(Math.random() * (max - min + 1)) + min; } function angle(x, y) { let result = Math.atan(y / x); if (x < 0) { result += Math.PI; } else if (y < 0) { result += 2 * Math.PI; } return result; }
Tests:
native
var xO = rand(1, 1000); var yO = rand(1, 1000); Math.atan(yO, xO);
alt
var xT = rand(1, 1000); var yT = rand(1, 1000); angle (xT, yT);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
native
alt
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):
Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is a JavaScript function that generates two random numbers, `xO` and `yO`, using the `rand` function. It then calls the `Math.atan` function with these two values, but without providing any explicit types or casts for the arguments (i.e., `x` and `y`). This means that the behavior of `Math.atan` is being tested when called with arbitrary numeric values. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Native**: This refers to the built-in JavaScript function `Math.atan`. The test case calls `Math.atan` directly, without any modifications or casts. 2. **alt**: This option is not explicitly defined in the benchmark definition, but based on the code, it seems that this is an alternative implementation of the `angle` function provided in the script preparation code. **Pros and Cons** The pros and cons of these approaches are: * **Native (Math.atan)**: * Pros: This is the standard JavaScript function for calculating arctangent. It's likely to be implemented efficiently by most browsers. * Cons: The behavior may vary depending on the input values, especially if they're outside the range of `-1` to `1`. However, in this specific test case, both inputs are within the valid range. * **alt (angle function)**: * Pros: This implementation provides additional features, such as handling cases where `x` or `y` is negative. It also avoids potential issues with NaN (Not a Number) inputs. * Cons: Implementing this alternative function correctly can be more complex and may not be optimized for performance. **Library and Purpose** The `angle` function is using the Math.atan2 function, which is available in most JavaScript environments since ECMAScript 5. This function takes two arguments, `y` and `x`, and returns the arctangent of `y/x`. However, if `x` or `y` is negative, it returns an angle in the correct quadrant. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There's a special JavaScript feature being used here: template literals (the `\r\n`-esque formatting). This syntax allows for more readable and expressive code, especially when working with strings. However, since this isn't a deep dive into JavaScript features, we'll leave it at that. **Other Alternatives** Some alternative approaches could include: * Using the `Math.atan2` function directly (as mentioned earlier), which is available in most modern browsers. * Implementing an alternative `angle` function using a library like Math.js or a custom implementation. For further exploration, you can consider exploring other benchmarking tools and resources, such as: * Browser-specific benchmarking platforms like browserbench.org * Online code editors with built-in benchmarking capabilities (e.g., jsFiddle) * JavaScript testing frameworks for more comprehensive testing
Related benchmarks:
trigata
trigata
trigata
trigata
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?