Benchmark: for vs new Array.fill v2

Script Preparation code:

var x=0;

Tests:

for
for( let i=1000; i; i-- ){ x++; }
reduce
x = new Array(1000).fill(0).reduce((x)=>x+1,0)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches to achieve the same result:

1. **For loop**: A traditional, manual approach using a `for` loop to iterate over an array of 1000 elements.
2. **Array.prototype.fill() with reduce()**: A more concise and efficient way to create an array of 1000 zeros and then increment each element using the `reduce()` method.

**Options compared**

The two approaches are being tested against each other, allowing users to compare their performance.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **For loop**:
	+ Pros: Easy to understand, no external dependencies required.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of explicit loop control (e.g., incrementing `i`).
* **Array.prototype.fill() with reduce():**
	+ Pros: More concise, often faster than traditional loops, and less prone to errors (since it's a standardized method).
	+ Cons: May not be as intuitive for beginners, requires knowledge of the `reduce()` method.

**Library/Language features**

In this benchmark, we don't see any specific libraries or language features being used that would require explanation beyond JavaScript itself. However, it's worth noting that both approaches utilize basic JavaScript concepts, such as loops and array manipulation.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If the developer wanted to test alternative approaches, they might consider:

* Using a different loop construct, like `while` or `forEach()`.
* Utilizing other array methods, such as `map()` or `every()`.
* Implementing the loop manually using bit manipulation or other optimizations.
* Using a different programming language, like C++ or Rust, to compare performance.

In summary, MeasureThat.net is providing a simple and easy-to-understand benchmark that allows users to compare the performance of two common JavaScript approaches: traditional loops (`for`) versus concise array methods (`Array.prototype.fill() with reduce()`).

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.61 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	6643.7 Ops/sec
reduce	299903.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

for vs new Array.fill v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs reduce

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

reduce

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):