Benchmark: Test for - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
  for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    arr[i] = i;
  }

  function someFn(ix) {
    return ix * 5;
  }

Tests:

while
var l = arr.length; var result=0; while(l--) { result+=someFn(arr[l]); }
for
var result=0; for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { result+=someFn(arr[i]); }
for 2
var l = arr.length; var result=0; for (var i = 0; i < l; i++) { result+=someFn(arr[i]); }
for 3
var l = arr.length; var result=0; for (var i = 0; i < l; i++) { result += arr[i] * 5; }
for 4
var result=0; for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { result += arr[i] * 5; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
while
for
for 2
for 3
for 4

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of three different for loops with varying conditions in JavaScript, which is run on Chrome 57 browser on Fedora Linux operating system.

**Loop Comparison**

1. **While Loop**: `var l = arr.length; var result=0; while(l--) { result+=someFn(arr[l]); }`
	* Pros: More flexible, can be used for dynamic length arrays.
	* Cons: May have performance issues with large arrays, as it iterates over the array until its length is 0.
2. **Traditional For Loop**: `var i = 0; var result=0; for (i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) { result+=someFn(arr[i]); }`
	* Pros: Standardized and widely supported, suitable for most cases.
	* Cons: May not be as flexible as the while loop, can lead to issues with array length changes.
3. **For Loop with Counter**: `var l = arr.length; var result=0; for (i = 0; i < l; i++) { result += arr[i] * 5; }`
	* Pros: Similar performance to traditional for loop, but avoids the issue of array length changes.
	* Cons: Less flexible than while loop, requires knowing the array length in advance.

**Comparison with Other Loop Types**

There is no explicit comparison between these loops and other types, such as:

* **For-Each Loop**: Not supported in older versions of JavaScript, currently not widely used due to its limitations (e.g., does not support for-each array elements).
* **Reduce Method**: Used for reducing arrays or iterables into a single value. While it is more concise than traditional loops, may not be as suitable for this specific benchmark.
* **Closures and Iterators**: Not applicable in this simple loop comparison.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, some libraries might be used implicitly (e.g., `someFn` uses an array function), but their purpose remains unclear without further context.

**Special JavaScript Features**

The provided code does not use any special JavaScript features such as:

* **ES6+ syntax**: No explicit ES6+ features are used in the benchmark.
* **Async/await**: Not applicable to this simple loop comparison.
* **Generators**: Not applicable to this simple loop comparison.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Fedora; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/57.0.2987.133 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 57 on Fedora

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
while	3766.5 Ops/sec
for	2641.4 Ops/sec
for 2	3529.7 Ops/sec
for 3	7543.1 Ops/sec
for 4	3854.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test for (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: while vs for vs for 2 vs for 3 vs for 4

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

while

for

for 2

for 3

for 4

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):