Benchmark: Different functions

Script Preparation code:

const containsObject = (obj, list) => {
    var i;
    for (i = 0; i < list.length; i++) {
        if (list[i] === obj) {
            return true;
        }
    }

    return false;
};

function containsObject2(obj, list) {
    var i;
    for (i = 0; i < list.length; i++) {
        if (list[i] === obj) {
            return true;
        }
    }

    return false;
};

Tests:

let
const containsObject = (obj, list) => { var i; for (i = 0; i < list.length; i++) { if (list[i] === obj) { return true; } } return false; }; let b = {}; let c = []; let x = containsObject(b, c);
const
function containsObject2(obj, list) { var i; for (i = 0; i < list.length; i++) { if (list[i] === obj) { return true; } } return false; }; let b = {}; let c = []; let x = containsObject2(b, c);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
let
const

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark in question compares the execution performance of two different function declarations: `let` and `const`.

**Tested Code Snippets**

The benchmark includes two test cases:

1. `containsObject`: A simple function that checks if an object exists in a list using a `for` loop.
2. `containsObject2`: An equivalent function to `containsObject`, but declared with the `const` keyword instead of `let`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution performance of two options:

1. **`let`**: A variable declaration with block scope, which means the variable is scoped to the surrounding block (e.g., a loop or an if statement).
2. **`const`**: A constant declaration with block scope, which also has the same scoping rules as `let`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`let`**:
	* Pros: Can be used to declare variables that need to be reassigned.
	* Cons: May have slower performance due to the overhead of dynamic variable binding.
2. **`const`**:
	* Pros: Provides better memory safety by preventing accidental reassignment, and can lead to faster execution times due to tighter scoping.
	* Cons: Can limit flexibility in certain scenarios where reassignment is necessary.

**Library Used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's likely that the `for` loop implementation uses a built-in JavaScript function or a V8-specific feature (e.g., `for...of`) which is not explicitly declared.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned, but it's worth noting that the use of block scope (`let`, `const`) and `for` loops may rely on some implementation details in older JavaScript engines. However, modern browsers like Chrome have optimized these features for performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare the execution performance of different function declarations could include:

* Using a different type of variable declaration, such as `var`.
* Comparing different loop constructs, like `while` or recursive loops.
* Testing different memory allocation strategies, like `new Array()` vs. `Array.prototype.slice()`.
* Measuring performance using alternative benchmarking libraries or frameworks.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternatives will depend on the specific use case and requirements of the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Different functions (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: let vs const

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

let

const

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):