Benchmark: try continue - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

catch
for(let i = 300; i--;) try {null.a} catch {}
catch continue
for(let i = 300; i--;) try {null.a} catch {continue}
finally continue
for(let i = 300; i--;) try {null.a} finally {continue}
try catch finally
for(let i = 300; i--;) try {null.a} catch {} finally {}
try catch continue finally continue
for(let i = 300; i--;) try {null.a} catch {continue} finally {continue}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
catch
catch continue
finally continue
try catch finally
try catch continue finally continue

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
catch	590.6 Ops/sec
catch continue	589.1 Ops/sec
finally continue	559.1 Ops/sec
try catch finally	495.6 Ops/sec
try catch continue finally continue	591.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark defined in the provided JSON tests various JavaScript constructs involving a `try...catch...finally` block, specifically focusing on how these constructs interact with the `continue` statement within loops. Here’s a breakdown of each test case, its implications, and the pros and cons of the different approaches:

### Test Cases

1. **Test Name: `catch`**
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `for(let i = 300; i--;) try {null.a} catch {}`
   - **Description**: This test executes a loop where a `try` block attempts to access an undefined property `null.a`, which throws an error. The `catch` block captures the error but does nothing.
   - **Execution:** Measured how often this loop can run without any handling actions in the `catch` block.
   - **Performance Insight**: This serves as a baseline for other tests that include handling behavior.

2. **Test Name: `catch continue`**
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `for(let i = 300; i--;) try {null.a} catch {continue}`
   - **Description**: Similar to the first, but this time, upon catching the error, it uses `continue` to skip to the next iteration of the loop.
   - **Performance Insight**: Allows evaluation of performance impact when the loop is told to skip iterations on error.

3. **Test Name: `finally continue`**
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `for(let i = 300; i--;) try {null.a} finally {continue}`
   - **Description**: This structure uses a `finally` block, which executes regardless of whether an error occurred, but continues the loop without handling the error, effectively causing an infinite loop since `continue` will always redirect to the next iteration without exiting.
   - **Performance Insight**: This tests the behavior of `finally` when it runs with `continue`. In practice, this could lead to a scenario where the loop never terminates.

4. **Test Name: `try catch finally`**
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `for(let i = 300; i--;) try {null.a} catch {} finally {}`
   - **Description**: A standard structure where error is caught, and the `finally` block executes an empty block.
   - **Performance Insight**: Measures baseline performance when both `catch` and `finally` are present but not altering flow like `continue`.

5. **Test Name: `try catch continue finally continue`**
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `for(let i = 300; i--;) try {null.a} catch {continue} finally {continue}`
   - **Description**: Here, both `catch` and `finally` contain the `continue` statement, which means no matter how the error is managed, the loop continuously continues to the next iteration.
   - **Performance Insight**: Evaluates how performance is affected by both catching the error and continuing through both the `catch` and `finally` blocks.

### Performance Results
The test results indicate the number of executions per second for each benchmark with the following insights:

- The fastest performance was observed for the `try catch continue finally continue`, indicating that handling errors and ensuring continued execution is more efficient than simply skipping or doing nothing.
- The `catch` method on its own performed slightly slower than `catch continue`, suggesting minimal overhead from the `continue` statement, and demonstrating basic error handling's efficiency.

### Pros and Cons

- **Using `catch` alone** (Pros): Simple and shows basic error handling effectiveness. (Cons): Does nothing with errors.
- **Using `catch continue`** (Pros): Prevents loop breakdown by skipping the error occurrence. (Cons): Introduces overhead due to additional control flow.
- **Using `finally`** with `continue` (Pros): Guarantees running code to clean up or finalize. (Cons): Can create infinite loop scenarios, complicating execution flow.
- **Using `try catch finally`** (Pros): Solid error and cleanup handling. (Cons): May be less efficient if the cleanup produces unnecessary overhead.
- **Using both `catch` and `finally` with `continue`** (Pros): Offers robust error handling while ensuring looping continuity. (Cons): Complex flow could potentially lead to misunderstandings, and always runs the risk of skipping necessary handling.

### Alternative Approaches
- **Using Promises**: In modern JavaScript, instead of `try/catch`, handling errors can be done with promises, allowing async operations and providing better control flow via `.catch()`.
- **Error Tracking Libraries**: Implementing libraries like Sentry can enhance error handling outside the immediate performance context, allowing developers to track errors without relying solely on `try...catch`.
- **Logging Mechanisms**: Instead of skipping errors, consider logging for debugging purposes, assisting in future improvements.
  
Ultimately, the choice among these options depends on the specific application context and error handling requirements.

Related benchmarks:

try continue (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: catch vs catch continue vs finally continue vs try catch finally vs try catch continue finally continue

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

catch

catch continue

finally continue

try catch finally

try catch continue finally continue

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):