Benchmark: testje - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var txt="OYmY 40913621\nnwuTNuInsMG\nUOOORMSOUqjcqEZzsjBeOdbSLoTDWjYNVvBNgO\nDAOGfTjLo                       272S2g\nneGUXGmMk                       105990\nHLsseCJF                          7831\nEtjwsaYGrDy                   70151320\n\n\njluoGFq\nqn6078731934941y\ngvM pUBF OpSI       \ncdlLWA             NvqAnBWDwLtksdN3651\nHkbtikfGujwaENPvT                    0\n\nZaGSjFNG\neqXEKD                20b14T9889 26H10\ntmOSdeUIQVrODdMO                d04291\n\n\nnoyphDx                       5s04 RYV\n\nNOQhXAvYPUd\nRSMUwCKSFyAk rHta\n";function FR1(n,t,e,r,s=null){var l=Array(n+1).join(s||" "),a="";n>(t=null==t?"":t).length&&(a=l.substring(0,n-t.length)),n<t.length&&(a="");var g="";if("right"==e&&(g=a+t,r&&(g=g.substring(0,g.length-1)+" ")),"left"==e&&(g=t.length>n?t.substring(0,n-2)+a+"..":t+a,r&&(g=" "+g.substring(0,g.length-1))),"center"==e){var i=Math.floor((n-t.length)/2);g=l.substring(0,i),g+=t;var o=n-(g+=l.substring(0,i)).length;g+=l.substring(0,o)}return g}function F1(n){const t=document.createElement("p");t.style.textAlign="center";const e=n.split(String.fromCharCode(10));for(let n=0;n<e.length;n++){const r=document.createElement("span");r.innerHTML=FR1(38,e[n],"left",!1),t.appendChild(r),t.appendChild(document.createElement("br"))}return t.outerHTML}function F2(n,t=""){return`<p style="text-align: center;">${t}<span>${n.split(String.fromCharCode(10)).map(n=>FR1(38,n,"left",!1)).join(`</span><br>${t}<span>`)}</span><br>${t}</p>`}

Tests:

F1
let res = F1(txt);
F2
let res = F2(txt);
F2a
let resA = F2(txt);
F1a
let resA = F1(txt);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
F1
F2
F2a
F1a

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.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript benchmarks is crucial for understanding how different browsers and devices handle various coding approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition json represents two main functions: `F1` and `F2`. These functions are used to measure the performance of a specific code snippet that generates HTML content. The `FR1` function is a helper function used by both `F1` and `F2`.

Here's what each function does:

*   `F1(n)`:
    *   Takes an input string `n`.
    *   Splits the input string into substrings using a newline character (`\n`) as the delimiter.
    *   For each substring, it calls the `FR1` function with specific parameters (the length of the substring, the original substring, and the alignment option).
    *   The resulting HTML content is then returned.

*   `F2(n,t=null)`:
    *   Takes an input string `n` and an optional second parameter `t`.
    *   Splits the input string into substrings using a newline character (`\n`) as the delimiter.
    *   For each substring, it calls the `FR1` function with specific parameters (the length of the substring, the original substring, "left" alignment, and a boolean flag).
    *   The resulting HTML content is then returned.

**Options Compared**

In the benchmark definition json, two options are compared:

*   `F2`: This option uses the `FR1` function with specific parameters to generate HTML content.
*   `F2a`: This option is identical to `F2`, but it has an extra assignment statement at the end (`let resA = F2(txt);`). This suggests that the performance difference between `F2` and `F2a` might be due to the overhead of the assignment statement.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

*   **`F1` and `F2`**:
    *   Pros: These functions use a straightforward approach to generate HTML content, making it easy to understand and maintain.
    *   Cons: The performance might be affected by the overhead of splitting strings and creating DOM elements in JavaScript.
*   **`F2a`**:
    *   Pros: Assigning the result to a variable (`let resA = F2(txt);`) might reduce the number of allocations or garbage collection, which could lead to better performance.
    *   Cons: The extra assignment statement adds unnecessary complexity and might introduce new sources of overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When analyzing the benchmark results, consider the following factors:

*   **Device and Browser**: The benchmark was run on a desktop device with Chrome 82 browser. Testing on different devices and browsers will provide more accurate insights into real-world performance.
*   **Operating System**: The benchmark was run on Windows OS. Testing on other operating systems, like macOS or Linux, might reveal differences in performance.
*   **JavaScript Engine**: The JavaScript engine used by the browser can significantly impact performance. Different engines have different optimizations and might affect the results.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring JavaScript benchmarks include:

*   Using a different benchmarking framework or library, such as Benchmark.js or WebPageTest.
*   Implementing custom benchmarking scripts using tools like `node-benchmark` or ` benchmark.js`.
*   Utilizing online benchmarking services, like jsperf or JSBench.

These alternatives might offer better performance metrics, more flexibility in customizing benchmarks, or easier integration with existing workflows.

Related benchmarks:

testje (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: F1 vs F2 vs F2a vs F1a

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

F1

F2

F2a

F1a

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):