Benchmark: Try/catch performance for control flow #4

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="test"></div>

Tests:

Try/catch
function checkNotFifty(num) { if (num !== 99999) { return true; } throw new Error('Number is odd'); } for (let i = 0; i < 100000;++i) { let res; try { checkNotFifty(i); res = true; } catch (err) { res = false; } }
Without try/catch
function checkNotFifty(num) { if (num !== 50) { return true; } return false; } for (let i = 0; i < 100000;++i) { let res; if (checkNotFifty(i)) { res = true; } else { res = false; } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Try/catch
Without try/catch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**What is being tested:**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **Try/catch block**: This approach uses a try-catch block to catch any exceptions thrown by the `checkNotFifty` function.
2. **Without try/catch block**: This approach does not use a try-catch block, and instead checks the return value of the `checkNotFifty` function directly.

**Script Preparation Code:**

The script preparation code is empty, which means that no additional setup or initialization is required before running the benchmark.

**Html Preparation Code:**

The HTML preparation code provides a simple `<div>` element with an ID of "test", which will be used to display the results.

**Individual test cases:**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Try/catch**: This test case uses a try-catch block to execute the `checkNotFifty` function, which throws an exception when the input is odd.
2. **Without try/catch**: This test case checks the return value of the `checkNotFifty` function directly without using a try-catch block.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

The benchmark uses ES6 syntax, including:

* Arrow functions (`=>`)
* Let and const declarations
* Template literals (`\r\n`)

However, this is not specific to any particular JavaScript version or implementation, as it's a general-purpose syntax.

**Pros and cons of the approaches:**

1. **Try/catch approach:**
	* Pros:
		+ Can handle unexpected errors and exceptions.
		+ Provides better error handling and debugging capabilities.
	* Cons:
		+ Introduces additional overhead due to exception handling.
		+ May lead to slower performance compared to the "without try/catch" approach.
2. **Without try/catch approach:**
	* Pros:
		+ Eliminates the need for exception handling, resulting in potentially faster performance.
		+ Can be more efficient for simple cases where no errors are expected.
	* Cons:
		+ Fails if an error occurs, resulting in a runtime error.

**Other considerations:**

When deciding between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Error handling**: If you expect errors to occur during execution, the try-catch approach is likely a better choice. However, if you're certain that no errors will occur, the without try/catch approach might be more suitable.
* **Performance**: In general, exception handling can introduce additional overhead, so if performance is critical, the without try/catch approach might be preferred. However, this depends on the specific use case and implementation.

**Alternatives:**

Other approaches to handle errors in JavaScript include:

1. **Async/await with try-catch**: This combines the benefits of async programming with traditional try-catch block handling.
2. **Promise-based error handling**: This uses Promises to handle errors in a more modern and efficient way.
3. **Error boundary components**: These are specialized components that catch and handle errors without affecting the rest of the application.

These alternatives might be more suitable depending on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Try/catch	12187.4 Ops/sec
Without try/catch	30820.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Try/catch performance for control flow #4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Try/catch vs Without try/catch

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Try/catch

Without try/catch

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):