Benchmark: romumerals - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

lutswitch
let randomInputs = []; for( let i = 0; i < 16; i+=4) { randomInputs[i] = Math.random().toString(10).substring(2, 3); randomInputs[i+1] = Math.random().toString(10).substring(2, 4); randomInputs[i+2] = Math.random().toString(10).substring(2, 5); randomInputs[i+3] = Math.random().toString(10).substring(2, 6); } function toRomanNumeralsLUTswitch(numberString) { // Group symbols by "exponent" const lut = [ ['', 'I', 'II', 'III', 'IV', 'V', 'VI', 'VII', 'VIII', 'IX'], // E0 ['', 'X', 'XX', 'XXX', 'XL', 'L', 'LX', 'LXX', 'LXXX', 'XC'], // E1 ['', 'C', 'CC', 'CCC', 'CD', 'D', 'DC', 'DCC', 'DCCC', 'CM'], // E2 // ['M'] // E3 ]; const digitCount = numberString.length - 1; let roman = ''; for (let i = 0; i <= digitCount; i++) { const exponent = digitCount - i; switch(exponent){ case 0: case 1: case 2: roman += lut[exponent][numberString[i]]; break; } } // Bundle all digits above E2 if ( digitCount >= 3) { roman = 'M'.repeat(numberString.slice(0,-3)) + roman; } return roman; } for ( const input of randomInputs ) { toRomanNumeralsLUTswitch(input); }
tcl
let randomInputs = []; for( let i = 0; i < 16; i+=4) { randomInputs[i] = Math.random().toString(10).substring(2, 3); randomInputs[i+1] = Math.random().toString(10).substring(2, 4); randomInputs[i+2] = Math.random().toString(10).substring(2, 5); randomInputs[i+3] = Math.random().toString(10).substring(2, 6); } var romantcl = { map: [ 1000, 'M', 900, 'CM', 500, 'D', 400, 'CD', 100, 'C', 90, 'XC', 50, 'L', 40, 'XL', 10, 'X', 9, 'IX', 5, 'V', 4, 'IV', 1, 'I', ], int_to_roman: function(n) { var value = ''; for (var idx = 0; n > 0 && idx < this.map.length; idx += 2) { while (n >= this.map[idx]) { value += this.map[idx + 1]; n -= this.map[idx]; } } return value; } } for ( const input of randomInputs ) { romantcl.int_to_roman(input); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lutswitch
tcl

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is empty, which means that the test cases are defined in the individual test case JSON objects.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **lutswitch**

This test case defines a function `toRomanNumeralsLUTswitch` that converts an integer to a Roman numeral using a lookup table (LUT) and a switch statement. The function takes a string input, groups the symbols by "exponent", and uses the LUT to map each symbol to its corresponding value.

The test case generates 16 random inputs of 2-6 characters and calls the `toRomanNumeralsLUTswitch` function for each input.

**tcl**

This test case defines an object `romantcl` with a method `int_to_roman`. The method takes an integer as input, maps it to its corresponding Roman numeral using the predefined mapping array, and returns the result.

The test case generates 16 random inputs of 2-6 characters and calls the `int_to_roman` method for each input.

**Comparison of Approaches**

Both approaches aim to convert integers to Roman numerals. However, they differ in their implementation:

1. **lutswitch**:
	* Uses a lookup table (LUT) to map symbols to values.
	* Employs a switch statement to handle the mappings.
	* Pros: Efficient for large inputs due to the use of LUT; easy to implement.
	* Cons: May have performance issues for small inputs or inputs with non-standard formatting; less readable than tcl.
2. **tcl**:
	* Uses an array-based mapping system.
	* Employs a simple loop to iterate through the mappings and build the result.
	* Pros: More readable and maintainable due to its array-based structure; efficient for small inputs.
	* Cons: May be less efficient than lutswitch for large inputs due to the overhead of the loop.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Input Formatting**: Both approaches assume that the input integer is well-formed and follows a specific format (e.g., 2-6 characters). Any non-standard formatting may lead to performance issues or errors.
2. **Symbol Handling**: The lutswitch approach assumes that symbols are grouped by "exponent" (i.e., the first character corresponds to values greater than 1000, etc.). This assumption might not hold for all inputs.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **Use a more advanced mapping system**: Instead of using a lookup table or an array-based mapping system, consider using a more sophisticated approach like a trie or a hash table.
2. **Implement the Roman numeral conversion algorithm from scratch**: Develop your own algorithm for converting integers to Roman numerals, which might be more efficient or readable than the existing approaches.
3. **Use a library or framework**: Leverage an existing library or framework that provides Roman numeral conversion functionality, such as jQuery's Roman numeral extension.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may add complexity and overhead to your implementation, so it's essential to evaluate their benefits against the existing approaches before deciding on a new direction.

Related benchmarks:

romumerals (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lutswitch vs tcl

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lutswitch

tcl

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):