Benchmark: gggggg - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

good
var list = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]; var nextListItem = function() { var item = list.pop(); if (item) { // process the list item... setTimeout( nextListItem, 0); } };
bad
var list = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]; var nextListItem = function() { var item = list.pop(); if (item) { // process the list item... nextListItem(); } };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
good
bad

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 explanation into smaller parts for better understanding.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided `json` represents a benchmark definition, which is a set of instructions that defines how to test a JavaScript code snippet. The keys in this object are:

*   `"Name"`: This field specifies a name for the benchmark.
*   `"Description"`: This field provides a description of the benchmark, but it's empty in this case.
*   `"Script Preparation Code"`: This field contains any necessary setup or initialization code that needs to be executed before running the benchmark. It's also empty in this case.
*   `"Html Preparation Code"`: This field specifies any additional HTML code that may need to be included for rendering and display purposes.

**Options Compared**

The two individual test cases (`"good"` and `"bad"`) differ only in how they call the `nextListItem` function. In the `"good"` case, it calls itself recursively using `setTimeout(nextListItem, 0);`, whereas in the `"bad"` case, it directly calls the same function with no delay.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1.  **Recursive Call (Good Case)**

*   **Advantages:**
        *   This approach can be more efficient because it uses a single `setTimeout` call to schedule the recursive execution.
        *   It's a common pattern in JavaScript where functions are called recursively without any delay, which can be less efficient than using `setTimeout`.
    *   **Disadvantages:**
        *   If the function call is too expensive (e.g., due to network latency or other external factors), the initial execution may take longer because of the recursive overhead.
2.  **Direct Call (Bad Case)**

*   **Advantages:**
        *   This approach avoids the recursive overhead and can be more suitable when the function call is not too expensive.
    *   **Disadvantages:**
        *   It results in an additional `nextListItem` function call without any delay, which can lead to higher overhead than the recursive approach.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. The code snippet only demonstrates basic recursion and function calls.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare different approaches to scheduling function calls, here are some alternatives:

*   **Using `setInterval`**: Instead of using `setTimeout`, you could use `setInterval` to schedule the recursive execution.
*   **Using a queue data structure**: You could implement a queue data structure (e.g., an array or a linked list) to manage the function calls and avoid recursion.
*   **Using a task queue library**: There are several JavaScript libraries (e.g., Node.js's built-in `timers` module, libraries like `node-timer`, or third-party modules like `async-mutex`) that provide efficient ways to schedule tasks, including recursive function calls.

These alternatives can help you explore different approaches to scheduling and executing function calls in a more efficient manner.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/60.0.3112.113 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 60 on Mac OS X 10.12.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
good	22386894.0 Ops/sec
bad	22308326.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

gggggg (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: good vs bad

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

good

bad

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):