Benchmark: Array fill method vs for loop small array

Tests:

For Loop fill
let arrayTest = new Array(100); for (let i = 0; i < arrayTest.length; i++){ arrayTest[i] = 0; }
Array Fill
let arrayTest = new Array(100).fill(0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For Loop fill
Array Fill

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two methods for filling an array with zeros: a traditional `for` loop and the newer `Array.prototype.fill()` method.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **For Loop fill**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array and set each element to zero.
```javascript
let arrayTest = new Array(100);
for (let i = 0; i < arrayTest.length; i++) {
  arrayTest[i] = 0;
}
```
2. **Array Fill**: This test case uses the `Array.prototype.fill()` method to fill the entire array with zeros.
```javascript
let arrayTest = new Array(100).fill(0);
```
**Comparison**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches:

* Traditional `for` loop (For Loop fill)
* Newer `Array.prototype.fill()` method (Array Fill)

**Pros and Cons**

### For Loop

Pros:

* Widely supported in older browsers
* Easy to understand and implement for developers familiar with traditional loops
* Can be used for more complex operations, not just filling arrays with zeros

Cons:

* Generally slower than modern methods like `fill()` due to the overhead of explicit looping
* More prone to errors, such as off-by-one errors or incorrect loop conditions

### Array Fill

Pros:

* Faster and more efficient than traditional loops
* Reduces code size and improves readability by eliminating explicit looping
* Part of the standard JavaScript API since ECMAScript 2015 (ES6)

Cons:

* May not work in older browsers that don't support `fill()` or may require polyfills
* Less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with modern array methods

**Library/Utility Used**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark code.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6): template literals (`\r\n`) and `let` constants. These features are widely supported in modern browsers, but may not work in older versions or require polyfills for support.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to fill an array with zeros, other alternatives might include:

* Using a library like Lodash's `fill` function
* Creating a custom utility function to fill arrays
* Using a more specialized library or tool for performance-critical code

Keep in mind that the choice of method ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and target audience.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 14_8_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.1.2 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 14 on iOS 14.8.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For Loop fill	4678301.0 Ops/sec
Array Fill	4332488.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array fill method vs for loop small array (version: 0)

Array fill method vs for loop performance validation

Comparing performance of: For Loop fill vs Array Fill

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For Loop fill

Array Fill

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):