Benchmark: Compare direct v funx

Script Preparation code:

var full = "bob smith";
var first = "bob";
var second = "smith";
var getFull = () => first + " " + second;

Tests:

Direct
var r = full === "bob smith";
Func
var r = getFull() === "bob smith";

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Direct
Func

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code snippet defines three variables: `full`, `first`, and `second`. Additionally, a function `getFull` is declared, which concatenates the values of `first` and `second` using the `+` operator.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This field is empty, so we won't be exploring any HTML-related aspects.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Direct**: The benchmark definition compares the string equality of `full` with a hardcoded string `"bob smith"`. It essentially checks if the result of the expression `full === "bob smith"` is true or false.
2. **Func**: The benchmark definition uses the `getFull()` function to concatenate `first` and `second`, and then compares the resulting string with the same hardcoded value `"bob smith"`. This test case evaluates the performance of using a function versus simple concatenation.

**Libraries**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, we can infer that the JavaScript engine being tested supports some level of dynamic typing and operator overloading (via the `===` comparison operator).

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly test any special JavaScript features or syntax.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

The two approaches being compared are:

1. **Direct**: This method uses simple string concatenation (`full === "bob smith"`). Pros:
	* Easy to understand and implement.
	* Typically faster for small strings.
Cons:
	* May lead to slower performance for larger strings due to the overhead of repeated concatenations.
2. **Func**: This method uses a function to concatenate `first` and `second` (`getFull() === "bob smith"`). Pros:
	* Can be faster for large strings, as it avoids the overhead of repeated concatenation.
Cons:
	* May require more memory allocation and deallocation due to the creation of a new function object.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to compare different approaches, you might also consider:

1. **Template Literals**: A modern JavaScript feature that allows for string interpolation using backticks (`` ` ``).
2. **String Interpolation Functions**: Some JavaScript engines or libraries provide functions specifically designed for string concatenation, like the `str.join()` method in some languages.
3. **Regular Expressions**: Using regular expressions to manipulate strings can be faster than simple concatenation, but may require more memory and CPU cycles.

Keep in mind that the actual performance differences between these approaches depend on various factors, including the specific JavaScript engine, string size, and execution environment.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 14_2 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.0.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 14 on iOS 14.2

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Direct	18107606.0 Ops/sec
Func	5342781.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Compare direct v funx (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Direct vs Func

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Direct

Func

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):