Benchmark: parenthesis or not

Tests:

parenthesis
var j = "MSKU765112"; var s = 0; var c1 = j.charCodeAt(0)-55; var c2 = j.charCodeAt(1)-55; var c3 = j.charCodeAt(2)-55; var c4 = j.charCodeAt(3)-55; s+=(Math.floor(c1/10.2)+c1)*1; s+=(Math.floor(c2/10.2)+c2)*2; s+=(Math.floor(c3/10.2)+c3)*4; s+=(Math.floor(c4/10.2)+c4)*8; s+=j.charCodeAt(4)*16-768; s+=j.charCodeAt(5)*32-1536; s+=j.charCodeAt(6)*64-3072; s+=j.charCodeAt(7)*128-6144; s+=j.charCodeAt(8)*256-12288; s+=j.charCodeAt(9)*512-24576; var d = s % 11 % 10; return d;
without
var j = "MSKU765112"; var s = 0; var c = j.charCodeAt(0)-55; s+=(Math.floor(c/10.2)+c)*1; var c = j.charCodeAt(1)-55; s+=(Math.floor(c/10.2)+c)*2; var c = j.charCodeAt(2)-55; s+=(Math.floor(c/10.2)+c)*4; var c = j.charCodeAt(3)-55; s+=(Math.floor(c/10.2)+c)*8; s+=j.charCodeAt(4)*16-768; s+=j.charCodeAt(5)*32-1536; s+=j.charCodeAt(6)*64-3072; s+=j.charCodeAt(7)*128-6144; s+=j.charCodeAt(8)*256-12288; s+=j.charCodeAt(9)*512-24576; var d = s % 11 % 10; return d;
3
var j = "MSKU765112"; var s = 0; var c = j.charCodeAt(0)-55; s+=(Math.floor(c/10.2)+c)*1; var c = j.charCodeAt(1)-55; s+=(Math.floor(c/10.2)+c)*2; var c = j.charCodeAt(2)-55; s+=(Math.floor(c/10.2)+c)*4; var c = j.charCodeAt(3)-55; s+=(Math.floor(c/10.2)+c)*8; s+=(j.charCodeAt(4)-48)*16; s+=(j.charCodeAt(5)-48)*32; s+=(j.charCodeAt(6)-48)*64; s+=(j.charCodeAt(7)-48)*128; s+=(j.charCodeAt(8)-48)*256; s+=(j.charCodeAt(9)-48)*512; var d = s % 11 % 10; return d;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parenthesis
without
3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is defined by a JSON object with three properties:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "parenthesis or not".
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating no description for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: Empty strings, indicating that no code needs to be executed before running the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**
There are three test cases:

1. **"parenthesis"`**: This test case uses a script with parentheses around some of the variable assignments. The script calculates a value `s` by adding up the results of various arithmetic operations on character codes from the string `"MSKU765112"`. The final result is then taken modulo 11 and then 10.
2. **"without"`**: This test case uses a script without parentheses around any variable assignments. It's similar to the previous one, but without the parentheses.
3. **"3"`**: This test case seems out of place, as it doesn't match either of the other two test cases in terms of code structure or logic. However, it appears to be another version of the "without" test case, with a different constant being subtracted from the character codes.

**Library and JavaScript Features**
There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition or script preparation code. However, the use of `charCodeAt()` and arithmetic operations suggests that JavaScript is being used, likely in a browser environment (given the presence of Gecko/20100101, which is an older version of Firefox).

**Options Compared**

The three test cases compare two approaches:

* **With parentheses**: The script uses parentheses around some variable assignments, making it harder for some optimizers to understand the code flow.
* **Without parentheses**: The script does not use parentheses around any variable assignments, potentially allowing for better optimization by the compiler or interpreter.

**Pros and Cons**

**With Parentheses:**

Pros:

* Better readability (though this might be subjective)

Cons:

* Potentially makes it harder for optimizers to understand the code flow

**Without Parentheses:**

Pros:

* Might make it easier for optimizers to understand the code flow
* Could lead to better performance due to more optimal instruction selection or generation

Cons:

* Less readable, especially for developers not familiar with this specific optimization technique

Other Considerations:

* The use of `charCodeAt()` and arithmetic operations suggests that the benchmark is focused on measuring performance rather than evaluating algorithmic correctness.
* The presence of multiple test cases with different coding styles suggests that the goal is to explore how optimizers handle these differences in code structure.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for this type of benchmark could include:

* Using a language other than JavaScript, such as C or C++.
* Using a library or framework that introduces additional overhead or optimization challenges (e.g., async/await syntax).
* Incorporating more complex algorithms or data structures to make the benchmarks more challenging.
* Comparing performance across different versions of browsers, engines, or compilers.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:53.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/53.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 53 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parenthesis	68717464.0 Ops/sec
without	67854808.0 Ops/sec
3	68876600.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

parenthesis or not (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: parenthesis vs without vs 3

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parenthesis

without

3

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):