Benchmark: some vs for..of - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var email = 'test@test.com';
var checks = ['@abc.com', '@def.com', 'test@test.com', 'abc@test.com'];

Tests:

some
checks.some((f) => (f.startsWith('@') && email.endsWith(f)) || f === email);
for..of
for (const f of checks) { if ((f.startsWith('@') && email.endsWith(f)) || f === email) { break; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
some
for..of

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
some	5528540.0 Ops/sec
for..of	5711868.5 Ops/sec

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: `for..of` and `some()` loops in JavaScript. The benchmark tests how efficiently each loop can iterate over an array of strings (`checks`) to find a match with a specific email address (`email`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a variable `email` with the value `'test@test.com'`. It also creates an array `checks` containing four string values: `['@abc.com', '@def.com', 'test@test.com', 'abc@test.com']`.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark does not test any DOM-related operations.

**Loop Comparisons**

The two loop comparisons are:

1. **`for..of` Loop**: The first test case uses a `for..of` loop to iterate over the `checks` array. It breaks out of the loop as soon as it finds a match with the email address.
2. **`some()` Loop**: The second test case uses the `some()` method, which returns `true` if at least one element in the array passes a given test (in this case, a function that checks if the string starts with `'@'` and ends with the email address).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`for..of` Loop**:
	* Pros: More concise and readable code, can be faster for small arrays.
	* Cons: May not perform well for large arrays due to the overhead of creating a loop.
2. **`some()` Loop**:
	* Pros: Efficient for large arrays, as it uses an optimized algorithm that stops iterating as soon as a match is found.
	* Cons: More verbose code and may require additional function creation.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in the benchmark, but it's worth noting that `some()` is a built-in JavaScript method.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned, so we'll move on to other considerations...

**Other Considerations**

* **Performance**: The benchmark measures the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each loop. A higher value indicates better performance.
* **Browser and Device**: The benchmark is run on a specific browser version (Chrome 120) and device platform (Desktop, Mac OS X 10.15.7). Other browsers and devices may yield different results.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative loop approaches or comparing other JavaScript features, here are some options:

* **`forEach()` Loop**: Similar to `for..of`, but with a slightly different syntax.
* **`reduce()` Loop**: Can be used to iterate over an array and accumulate values, but may not be suitable for this specific use case.
* **`map()` Loop**: Used to transform arrays, but not typically used for iterating over elements in the same way as `for..of` or `some()`.
* **Other JavaScript Features**: MeasureThat.net offers a wide range of benchmarks that test various JavaScript features and libraries, such as async/await, promises, and more.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its comparisons!

Related benchmarks:

some vs for..of (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: some vs for..of

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

some

for..of

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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