function t() {
const h = {
a: null,
b: null,
};
h.a = Math.random();
h.b = Math.floor(Math.random() * 1200);
return h;
}
function t() {
const a = Math.random();
const b = Math.floor(Math.random() * 1200);
return { a, b };
}
function t() {
return { a: Math.random(), b: Math.floor(Math.random() * 1200) };
}
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
1 | |
2 | |
3 |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
1 | 289567616.0 Ops/sec |
2 | 317021280.0 Ops/sec |
3 | 322383584.0 Ops/sec |
Measuring JavaScript performance is a crucial task, and MeasureThat.net provides a great platform for it.
What is tested?
The provided JSON represents two types of benchmarks:
a
and b
. In this specific example, property a
is assigned a random number between 0 and 1, while property b
is assigned a random integer between 0 and 1199.Benchmark Definition
(a string containing the JavaScript function that returns an object with a
and b
) and Test Name
(a unique identifier for the test case).Options compared
The benchmark compares different approaches to generating random numbers:
Math.random()
twice, once to generate a float between 0 and 1, and again to scale it up to an integer between 0 and 1199.Pros and cons
Library usage
None of the provided benchmarks use any libraries or external dependencies.
Special JS features/syntax
The provided benchmarks do not contain any special JavaScript features or syntax. They are basic examples of generating random numbers using built-in functions.
Other alternatives
There are several other approaches to generating random numbers in JavaScript, including:
In conclusion, MeasureThat.net provides a great platform for measuring JavaScript performance and comparing different approaches to generating random numbers. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can optimize their code for better performance and more efficient use of resources.