Benchmark: Compare repetitive action

Script Preparation code:

var parameter = 10;

Tests:

Repeated code
let result = 0; if (parameter === 0) { ++result; } if (parameter === 1) { ++result; } if (parameter === 2) { ++result; } if (parameter === 3) { ++result; } if (parameter === 4) { ++result; } if (parameter === 5) { ++result; } if (parameter === 6) { ++result; } if (parameter === 7) { ++result; } if (parameter === 8) { ++result; } if (parameter === 9) { ++result; } if (parameter === 10) { ++result; }
With array and cycle
let result = 0; let options = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]; for (const option of options) { if (option === options) { ++result; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Repeated code
With array and cycle

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.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for increasing a counter variable in a repetitive action:

1. **Sequential approach**: Using an if-else statement with multiple conditions, where the counter is incremented only when the condition matches.
2. **Array-based approach**: Using a loop that iterates over an array of numbers, incrementing the counter for each iteration.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* **Repeated code**: This option uses the sequential approach with 11 conditions (from 0 to 10) in an if-else statement.
* **With array and cycle**: This option uses the array-based approach, iterating over an array of numbers from 0 to 10.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **Repeated code**:
	+ Pros: Easy to understand and maintain, as it follows a familiar if-else structure.
	+ Cons: Performance may suffer due to the overhead of multiple conditional checks.
* **With array and cycle**:
	+ Pros: More efficient than sequential approach, as the loop only needs to iterate over the array once.
	+ Cons: May be less intuitive for some developers, especially those unfamiliar with array-based looping.

**Library Usage**

Neither of these approaches relies on any specific libraries. However, it's worth noting that the `for...of` loop used in the "With array and cycle" option is a built-in feature introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7).

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The `for...of` loop in the second test case uses a new syntax introduced in ES7, which allows iterating over arrays using a more concise and readable syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

There are alternative approaches that could have been used for this benchmark:

* Using a switch statement instead of if-else statements
* Using a single loop with an array of objects to conditionally increment the counter
* Using a more modern approach like `Array.prototype.reduce()` or `Array.prototype.every()`

However, these alternatives would likely be less efficient and might not provide significant performance gains over the existing approaches.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code for each test case is as follows:

* "Repeated code": A simple if-else statement with 11 conditions.
* "With array and cycle": A `for...of` loop iterating over an array of numbers.

These codes are intentionally simplified to focus on the performance comparison between the two approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Compare repetitive action (version: 0)

Test how to increase repetitive action with array and for..of cycle

Comparing performance of: Repeated code vs With array and cycle

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Repeated code

With array and cycle

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):