Benchmark: Doc Testing - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

o
const cb = () => {}; if (typeof document != 'object') throw new Error('document must be object'); if (document.readyState === 'complete' || document.readyState === 'interactive') { return setTimeout(cb, 0) } document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', () => { cb(); });
n
const cb = () => {}; const d = document.readyState; if (d === 'complete' || d === 'interactive') { return setTimeout(cb) } document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded', () => { cb(); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
o
n

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark you've provided.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests two different approaches to execute a function when the document is ready in a web page. The goal is to compare the performance of these two approaches: using `setTimeout` with an empty callback, and directly checking the `document.readyState`.

**Approach 1: Using `setTimeout` with an empty callback**

This approach uses `setTimeout` with an empty callback function (`cb`) that returns immediately. If the document's ready state is `'complete'` or `'interactive'`, it waits for a short period (0 milliseconds in this case) before returning.

```javascript
if (document.readyState === 'complete' || document.readyState === 'interactive') {
  return setTimeout(cb, 0)
}
```

**Pros:**

1. Simplistic and easy to understand.
2. No need to check the `document.readyState` value multiple times.

**Cons:**

1. May not be efficient if the callback function is expensive or has side effects.
2. May waste time waiting for a short period, even when the document is ready immediately.

**Approach 2: Directly checking `document.readyState`**

This approach directly checks the `document.readyState` value and executes the callback function (`cb`) only when it's `'complete'`.

```javascript
if (d === 'complete') {
  cb()
}
```

**Pros:**

1. More efficient, as it avoids unnecessary waiting times.
2. May be faster if the callback function is expensive or has side effects.

**Cons:**

1. Requires multiple checks of `document.readyState`.
2. May not work as expected in older browsers that don't support `document.readyState`.

**Library and Special Features**

In this benchmark, no libraries are used beyond the standard JavaScript functionality.

No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark. It's designed to test basic JavaScript execution performance.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to modify this benchmark, here are some alternative approaches:

1. **Using `requestAnimationFrame`**: Instead of using `setTimeout`, use `requestAnimationFrame` to schedule the callback function when the document is ready.
2. **Checking `document.readyState` with a timeout**: Use a timeout (e.g., 100ms) to wait for `document.readyState` to be `'complete'` before executing the callback function.
3. **Using a different approach, such as checking for the 'DOMContentLoaded' event**: Instead of relying on `document.readyState`, check for the `DOMContentLoaded` event, which is fired when the document has finished loading.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might change the benchmark's behavior and are intended to provide alternative perspectives rather than being directly comparable to the original approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Doc Testing (version: 0)

testing

Comparing performance of: o vs n

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

o

n

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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