Benchmark: Array.from().map vs Array.prototype.map.call

Script Preparation code:

var a = "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";

Tests:

Array.from().map
Array.from(a).map(v=>v.toUpperCase());
Array.prototype.map.call
Array.prototype.map.call(a,v=>v.toUpperCase());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.from().map
Array.prototype.map.call

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark with two test cases:

1. `Array.from().map`
2. `Array.prototype.map.call`

These two test cases are comparing the performance of using `Array.from()` with `.map` versus using `Array.prototype.map.call()`. Both approaches aim to convert a string into an array and then map each character to its uppercase equivalent.

**Options being compared**

The options being compared are:

* Using `Array.from()` with `.map` (Test Case 1)
* Using `Array.prototype.map.call()` (Test Case 2)

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

**Array.from().map**

Pros:

* More concise and readable
* Does not require calling `call()` on the `map` function

Cons:

* May have higher overhead due to creating a new array using `Array.from()`
* May not be optimized by JavaScript engines for this specific use case

**Array.prototype.map.call()**

Pros:

* Can take advantage of optimizations in JavaScript engines, as it explicitly calls `call()` on the `map` function
* May reduce overhead compared to `Array.from().map`

Cons:

* Less concise and less readable due to the need to call `call()` on the `map` function
* Requires explicit type casting to a function

**Library Usage**

There is no library usage in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that both `Array.from()` and `Array.prototype.map()` are built-in JavaScript methods.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Neither of these test cases uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript syntax.

**Other Considerations**

When comparing performance, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Loop unrolling
* SIMD instructions (Single Instruction, Multiple Data)
* Cache locality

These optimizations can significantly impact the performance difference between similar approaches.

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript microbenchmarks include:

* V8 Benchmark Suite (for Chrome-specific benchmarks)
* SpiderMonkey Benchmark Suite (for Firefox-specific benchmarks)
* JavaScript Engine Comparison using a generic benchmark suite like jsperf

Keep in mind that each engine has its unique optimizations, and the best approach may depend on the specific use case and target audience.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/102.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 102 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.from().map	686346.6 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.map.call	268187.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array.from().map vs Array.prototype.map.call (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.from().map vs Array.prototype.map.call

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Array.from().map

Array.prototype.map.call

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):