Benchmark: For loop bench2 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

for -
var payload=['apple','banana','mango'] for(var key = 0; key < payload.length ; key++){ console.log(payload[key]); }
for+
var payload=['apple','banana','mango'] for(var key = payload.length-1; key >=0 ; key--){ console.log(payload[key]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for -
for+

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.71 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for -	71039.2 Ops/sec
for+	56215.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark definition and test cases for you.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark definition. It's a simple, yet informative structure that describes various aspects of the benchmark:

*   `Name`: A unique identifier for the benchmark, which is "For loop bench2" in this case.
*   `Description` and `Script Preparation Code`, as well as `Html Preparation Code`, are all empty, indicating that no additional context or setup code is required for the benchmark.
*   The `Benchmark Definition` section contains the actual JavaScript code being tested. In this case, there are two variations: a traditional for loop (`for -`) and an incrementing for loop with a decrementing counter (`for+`).

**Individual Test Cases**

The test cases represent the two different versions of the for loop benchmark:

1.  **Traditional For Loop (for-)**
    *   The `Benchmark Definition` includes a traditional for loop that iterates over an array, logging each element to the console.
2.  **Incrementing For Loop with Decrementing Counter (for+)**
    *   This version of the for loop also iterates over the same array but uses an incrementing counter and a decrementing index (`key--`) to achieve similar results.

**Pros and Cons**

Both approaches have their trade-offs:

*   Traditional for loops are generally more straightforward, easy to understand, and faster execution.
    *   **Pros:** Easier to write, faster execution
    *   **Cons:** May lead to inefficiencies or unnecessary iterations if not optimized correctly
*   Incrementing and decrementing counters can optimize the loop by reducing the number of iterations.
    *   **Pros:** Can potentially reduce overhead or improve performance
    *   **Cons:** More complex syntax, may be less intuitive for beginners

**Other Considerations**

The incrementing and decrementing counter approach can help avoid array indices being out of bounds if not implemented correctly. However, this comes at the cost of readability and maintainability.

**Library Usage**

There's no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. If any libraries were used, they would likely be part of the JavaScript runtime environment (e.g., `console`, arrays) rather than a separate dependency.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this specific benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two different for loop implementations.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring JavaScript performance include:

*   **Benchmarking libraries**: Such as Benchmark.js, micro-benchmark, or js-bench.
*   **JavaScript engines**: Each engine has its own performance characteristics and optimizations that may affect benchmark results.
*   **Other execution environments**: Different platforms (e.g., Node.js, browser), browsers (e.g., Chrome, Firefox), or even different versions of JavaScript engines.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative often depends on specific use cases, requirements, and goals.

Related benchmarks:

For loop bench2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for - vs for+

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for -

for+

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):