Benchmark: ... operator versus for loop

Script Preparation code:

var array = [];
for (let i = 0 ; i < 100 ; i++)
	array.push (Math.floor (Math.random () * 100));

Tests:

... operator
var array2 = [1, 2, 3]; array2.push (...array);
for loop
var array2 = [1, 2, 3]; for (let i = 0 ; i < array.length ; i++) array2.push (array[i]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
... operator
for loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 15_4 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.4 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 15 on iOS 15.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
... operator	1004976.3 Ops/sec
for loop	92081.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents two test cases:

1. **"..." operator**: The script preparation code pushes random numbers into an array using the spread operator (`...`).
```javascript
var array = [];
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
  array.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 100));
}
```
2. **For loop**: The script preparation code pushes random numbers into an array using a traditional for loop.
```javascript
var array2 = [1, 2, 3];
array2.push(array[i]);
```

**Comparison**

The test compares the performance of both approaches on an initial array `[1, 2, 3]`. The results will show which method is faster and more efficient.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches:**

1. **..." operator"**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and expressive.
		+ Easier to read and maintain.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of spreading the array.
2. **For loop**:
	* Pros:
		+ Direct access to elements in the array.
		+ Can be more efficient for large arrays.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose and less readable.

**Other Considerations:**

* The test doesn't consider other factors that might affect performance, such as array size, data type, or JavaScript engine version.
* It's essential to note that the spread operator is a relatively recent addition to JavaScript (introduced in ECMAScript 2015), so its performance may vary depending on the JavaScript engine and browser.

**Library Usage:**

None of the provided scripts use any external libraries.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**

The test uses the spread operator (`...`) and traditional for loop, but no other special features or syntax are used.

**Alternatives:**

If you wanted to compare different approaches, you could consider adding more test cases, such as:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach` instead of a traditional for loop.
* Comparing performance with `Array.prototype.reduce()` or `Array.prototype.map()`.
* Testing with larger arrays or varying data types (e.g., numbers, strings, objects).

Keep in mind that the results may vary depending on the JavaScript engine and browser being used.

Related benchmarks:

... operator versus for loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ... operator vs for loop

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

... operator

for loop

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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