Benchmark: exception flow control vs. if-else

Tests:

try-catch control flow (no exception)
const ok = true; let res; try { if (!ok) { throw new Error('ok = false'); } res = 1 + 1; } catch (e) { res = 1 + 2; }
try-catch control flow (thrown exception)
const ok = false; let res; try { if (!ok) { throw new Error('ok = false'); } res = 1 + 1; } catch (e) { res = 1 + 2; }
if-else (hits if)
const ok = true; let res; if (ok) { res = 1 + 1; } else { res = 1 + 2; }
if-else (hits else)
const ok = false; let res; if (ok) { res = 1 + 1; } else { res = 1 + 2; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
try-catch control flow (no exception)
try-catch control flow (thrown exception)
if-else (hits if)
if-else (hits else)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to control flow in JavaScript: using a thrown exception versus an if-else statement. The goal is to determine which approach is more efficient in terms of execution speed.

**Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. **try-catch control flow (no exception)**: In this test, the code tries to execute `res = 1 + 1` when the condition `ok` is true. If `ok` is false, an error is thrown, but it's caught and handled.
2. **try-catch control flow (thrown exception)**: Similar to the previous test, but with a thrown exception instead of trying to execute `res = 1 + 1`.
3. **if-else (hits if)**: In this test, the code checks the condition `ok` and executes `res = 1 + 1` if it's true.
4. **if-else (hits else)**: Similar to the previous test, but with the opposite logic for the if-statement.

**What's being tested**

* The execution speed of each test case
* Whether using a thrown exception or an if-else statement results in faster execution

**Comparison of approaches**

The benchmark compares two alternatives:

1. **Try-catch block**: Using a try-catch block to catch and handle exceptions. This approach is useful when you want to handle specific errors that may occur during execution.
	* Pros: Can be used for error handling, provides more control over code flow.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to exception handling, can slow down execution if exceptions are frequently thrown.
2. **If-else statement**: Using an if-else statement to control the flow of execution.
	* Pros: Can be faster and more efficient than try-catch blocks for simple conditional statements.
	* Cons: May not provide as much control over code flow, can lead to nested conditionals which can increase complexity.

**Library**

None are mentioned explicitly in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, it's likely that the benchmark uses a standard JavaScript engine or environment that provides the necessary functionality for try-catch blocks and if-else statements.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

The benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is considered standard JavaScript.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to try-catch blocks and if-else statements include:

* **Switch statements**: Used when there are multiple conditional branches to consider.
* **Loops**: Used when the code needs to repeat a set of instructions.
* **Conditional expressions (ternary operators)**: Used when there is only one conditional branch.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be directly comparable to try-catch blocks and if-else statements, as they have different use cases and performance characteristics.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
try-catch control flow (no exception)	87897968.0 Ops/sec
try-catch control flow (thrown exception)	197190.7 Ops/sec
if-else (hits if)	82208832.0 Ops/sec
if-else (hits else)	85572608.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

exception flow control vs. if-else (version: 0)

A comparison between utilizing a thrown exception to control flow vs. an if-else.

Comparing performance of: try-catch control flow (no exception) vs try-catch control flow (thrown exception) vs if-else (hits if) vs if-else (hits else)

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

try-catch control flow (no exception)

try-catch control flow (thrown exception)

if-else (hits if)

if-else (hits else)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):