Benchmark: Roop Performance: while vs for vs call myself

Script Preparation code:

var count = 10000;
var target = [];

for(let i = 0; i < count; i++) {
  target[i] = i;
}

Tests:

while roop
var sum = 0; var i = 0; while(sum < 70000) { sum += target[i]; i++; }
for
var sum = 0; for(let i = 0; sum < 70000; i++) { sum += target[i]; }
call myself
var sum = 0; var i = 0; var sumFunction = (num) => { sum += target[num]; i++; if(sum < 70000) sumFunction(i); }; sumFunction(i);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
while roop
for
call myself

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
while roop	91320.3 Ops/sec
for	91455.2 Ops/sec
call myself	61779.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark defines three test cases: `while roop`, `for`, and `call myself`. These test cases compare the performance of different JavaScript loop constructs.

**What is tested?**

In this benchmark, the following options are compared:

*   **While Loop (`while roop`)**: This test case uses a traditional while loop to iterate through an array.
*   **For Loop (`for`)**: This test case uses a for loop with an iterator to iterate through the same array as the while loop test case.
*   **Call Myself (`call myself`)**: This test case uses a recursive function call to achieve the same iteration as the other two test cases.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1.  **While Loop (`while roop`)**

*   Pros:
        *   Simple and straightforward implementation
        *   Easy to understand for beginners
    *   Cons:
        *   Can be slower due to the overhead of conditional checks
        *   May not perform well on modern JavaScript engines that optimize away unnecessary conditionals
2.  **For Loop (`for`)**

*   Pros:
        *   Often faster than while loops due to optimized iteration and bounds checking
        *   Less prone to infinite loops (although this can be mitigated with proper bounds checking)
    *   Cons:
        *   May not work well when iterating through arrays of dynamic size
        *   Can lead to slower performance if the iterator is expensive to compute
3.  **Call Myself (`call myself`)**

*   Pros:
        *   Innovative and interesting approach that highlights the potential of recursive functions in JavaScript
    *   Cons:
        *   Likely to be the slowest option due to the overhead of recursive function calls
        *   May not work well for large arrays or performance-critical applications

**Other Considerations**

*   The benchmark uses a fixed array size of 10,000 elements. In real-world scenarios, this value may vary.
*   The test cases iterate through an array with values ranging from 0 to the target value (70000). This range is arbitrary and might not accurately represent typical use cases.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark test cases explicitly uses a library. However, it's worth noting that libraries like `lodash` or `underscore` might be used in real-world applications for array iteration and manipulation. In this case, they would likely provide an additional layer of abstraction and optimization.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The test cases do not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard language constructs mentioned earlier.

Related benchmarks:

Roop Performance: while vs for vs call myself (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: while roop vs for vs call myself

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

while roop

for

call myself

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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