Benchmark: try-catch with artificial error vs try-catch with no error

Tests:

try-catch no error
try { console.log('hi'); } catch(e) { };
try-catch throw error
try { console.log('hi'); throw "new error"; } catch(e) { };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
try-catch no error
try-catch throw error

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is simply two lines of JavaScript code:

1. `try { console.log('hi'); } catch(e) { }`: This attempts to execute the code inside the `try` block, which includes logging a message to the console. However, there's no error thrown in this case.
2. `try { console.log('hi'); throw "new error"; } catch(e) { }`: This is similar to the first one, but it also throws an error using the `throw` keyword.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing two different approaches:

1. **Try-catch with no error**: In this case, the code inside the `try` block executes successfully without throwing any errors.
2. **Try-catch with error**: In this case, the code throws an error using the `throw` keyword.

**Pros and Cons**

The pros of each approach are:

1. **Try-catch with no error**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be used when you want to ensure that a specific block of code is executed regardless of whether an error occurs.
		+ Can help prevent errors from propagating up the call stack.
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce unnecessary overhead due to the `try`-`catch` block execution.
2. **Try-catch with error**:
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for more flexibility in handling errors, as you can specify a custom error handler or propagate the error up the call stack.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower due to the overhead of throwing and catching an exception.

**Library usage**

There doesn't appear to be any libraries used in this benchmark. The code is simple JavaScript that only uses built-in functions like `console.log()` and `throw()`.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The `try`-`catch` block itself is a special construct in JavaScript, but there's no specific syntax or feature being tested here. It's simply a standard way to handle errors in your code.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative ways to handle errors in your code, some options include:

1. **Using `try`-`catch` blocks with error handling functions**: Instead of just catching the error and doing nothing, you can specify a custom function to be called when an error occurs.
2. **Using async/await syntax**: If you're using asynchronous code, you can use async/await syntax to handle errors in a more concise way.
3. **Using `finally` blocks**: Instead of using separate `try`-`catch` blocks for each block of code that might throw an error, you can use a single `try`-`catch` block with a `finally` block to clean up resources.

Keep in mind that the choice of error handling approach depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
try-catch no error	264424.5 Ops/sec
try-catch throw error	182655.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

try-catch with artificial error vs try-catch with no error (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: try-catch no error vs try-catch throw error

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

try-catch no error

try-catch throw error

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):