Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
uuid things 444
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
original vs es6 + crypto
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
original
function myFunction() { return { "foo":"FOO", "bar":"BAR", "baz":"BAZ", } } console.log(myFunction()['bar']);
es6 + crypto
const myObj = { "foo":"FOO", "bar":"BAR", "baz":"BAZ", } console.log(myObj['bar']);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
original
es6 + crypto
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition Json** The provided benchmark definition json represents a simple JavaScript function that returns an object with three properties: `foo`, `bar`, and `baz`. The function is defined using traditional JavaScript syntax, without any modern features like ES6 classes or async/await. The script preparation code is empty, which means the benchmark will use the default JavaScript engine. **Script Preparation Code** Since there is no script preparation code provided, MeasureThat.net will likely execute a minimal JavaScript function that creates an instance of the benchmarked function and returns it. This ensures consistency across different browsers and environments. **Html Preparation Code** There is no html preparation code provided, which means the benchmark will not include any HTML markup or external resources. This simplifies the testing process but may limit the scope of the benchmark. **Test Cases** MeasureThat.net provides two test cases: 1. **"original"`**: This test case uses traditional JavaScript syntax (function declaration) to create a function that returns an object with three properties. 2. **"es6 + crypto"`**: This test case uses ES6 syntax (const, template literals) and includes the `crypto` library, which is used for generating random values. **Options Compared** In this benchmark, two different approaches are compared: 1. Traditional JavaScript syntax (function declaration) 2. ES6 syntax with the `crypto` library The pros and cons of these approaches are: * **Traditional JavaScript syntax**: + Pros: widely supported, easy to read and write. + Cons: may not take advantage of modern optimizations or features. * **ES6 syntax with `crypto` library**: + Pros: allows for more concise code, can utilize modern optimizations and features. + Cons: requires support for ES6 features, which might not be available in older browsers. **Library Usage** The `crypto` library is used in the "es6 + crypto" test case to generate random values. This library provides a set of cryptographic functions that can be used to create secure pseudorandom numbers, hashes, and more. In this benchmark, it's used to populate the object returned by the function. **Special JS Features or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, except for ES6 syntax, which is a modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. **Alternatives** If you were to create a new benchmark on MeasureThat.net, you could consider using different approaches, such as: * Using Node.js instead of the browser engine. * Incorporating external libraries or frameworks (e.g., React, Angular). * Utilizing modern JavaScript features like async/await, promises, or web workers. * Creating a benchmark that tests performance under specific conditions (e.g., network latency, device orientation). These alternatives would require modifications to the benchmark definition json and potentially new test cases.
Related benchmarks:
UUID perf test
UUID Test 3
UUID Generation 2
UUID V4 Crypto vs Math
Set string vs number
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?