Benchmark: testasd - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<input class="Main_LabelConnectionString" />
<input class="Main_LabelConnectionString" />
<input class="Main_LabelConnectionString" />
<input class="Main_LabelConnectionString" />

Script Preparation code:

var isEmpty = function(el){
  return !$.trim(el.val())
}

Tests:

Function outside
var checkEmpty = function(element){ if (isEmpty(element)) { element.removeClass('active'); } else { element.addClass('active'); } }; $('.Main_LabelConnectionString').on('keyup', function(){ checkEmpty($(this)); });
Code inside
$('.Main_LabelConnectionString').on('keyup', function(){ var $this = $(this); if (isEmpty($this)) { $this.removeClass('active'); } else { $this.addClass('active'); } });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Function outside
Code inside

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON data represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches: executing code inside and outside a function.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two script preparation codes:

1. `testasd`:
	* Defines an empty function `isEmpty` that checks if an input element has no value.
	* Prepares HTML for testing with four identical input fields.
2. The individual test cases are defined in the "Benchmark Definition" section of each test case object.

There are two main test cases:

1. **Function outside**:
	* Defines a function `checkEmpty` that removes the "active" class from an element if it's empty, and adds it otherwise.
	* Attaches this function to the `keyup` event of each input field using jQuery.
2. **Code inside**:
	* Defines a similar code block, but with the logic executed directly in the JavaScript code, without defining a separate function.

**Comparison**

The main difference between these two approaches is where the logic is executed:

1. **Function outside**: The `checkEmpty` function is defined separately and then attached to the event handler. This approach has the following pros:
	* Easier to understand and maintain the code.
	* Can be reused in other parts of the application.
	* Reduces code duplication.
2. **Code inside**: The logic is executed directly in the JavaScript code, without defining a separate function. This approach has the following cons:
	* Harder to read and maintain the code due to inline logic.
	* Increases code duplication.

However, both approaches have their use cases:

1. **Function outside**:
	* Suitable for small, simple functions that don't need to be reused elsewhere.
	* Can help reduce global namespace pollution by encapsulating logic in a separate function.
2. **Code inside**:
	* Suitable for complex logic or performance-critical code paths.
	* Allows for fine-grained control over the execution order and can optimize performance.

**Other Considerations**

1. **jQuery**: Both test cases use jQuery, which is a popular JavaScript library that provides a lot of convenience functions, such as `.trim()`, `.removeClass()`, and `.addClass()`. jQuery can also improve performance by providing optimized DOM manipulation and event handling.
2. **Browser-specific features**: The benchmark uses the `RawUAString` field to identify the browser being tested (in this case, Chrome 55). This feature is not relevant in this specific benchmark but may be important for more comprehensive testing scenarios.

**Alternatives**

If you need to measure performance differences between two approaches similar to these test cases:

1. **Use a library like Benchmark.js**: A popular JavaScript library specifically designed for benchmarking.
2. **Write custom benchmarking code**: Using a programming language or framework that provides built-in support for benchmarking, such as Node.js's `benchmark` module.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/55.0.2883.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 55 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Function outside	102191.3 Ops/sec
Code inside	120378.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testasd (version: 0)

testing

Comparing performance of: Function outside vs Code inside

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Function outside

Code inside

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):