Benchmark Overview

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case that compares the performance of three different approaches for matching a string against more than one possibility: String.includes, String.match with a needle, and String.match with a regular expression.

Test Cases

The benchmark consists of three individual test cases:

1. String.includes: This test case checks how fast includes() is compared to itself for different strings.
2. String.match needle: This test case compares the performance of match() when passed a single string (needle) against another string.
3. String.match regexp: This test case measures the performance of match() when passed a regular expression against a string.

Options Compared

The benchmark compares three different options:

• String.includes: A simple method to check if a substring is present in a string.
• String.match(needle): A method that searches for a specific pattern (needle) in a string and returns an array of matches or null if no match is found.
• String.match(regexp): A method that uses regular expressions to search for patterns in a string.

Pros and Cons

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

• String.includes:
  • Pros: Simple, fast, and widely supported.
  • Cons: May not be as efficient as other methods for large strings or complex searches.
• String.match(needle):
  • Pros: Can match multiple substrings with a single call, more flexible than includes().
  • Cons: May be slower than includes() and has limitations on the type of patterns that can be used (e.g., no regex support).
• String.match(regexp):
  • Pros: Powerful for complex searches using regular expressions.
  • Cons: Can be slower than includes() or match(needle), and may have performance issues with very long strings.

Library and Purpose

In the provided benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that both String.match() and String.includes() methods rely on internal JavaScript engine optimizations, which can vary between browsers and versions.

Special JS Features or Syntax

None of the test cases explicitly use special JavaScript features or syntax (e.g., ES6 classes, async/await, etc.). The tests focus on the performance comparison of three basic string matching approaches.

Alternatives

If you're looking for alternatives to MeasureThat.net, some popular options include:

• jsperf: A classic benchmarking website for JavaScript that allows users to create and run microbenchmarks.
• Benchmark.js: A lightweight, modern benchmarking library for Node.js and web browsers.
• Speedometer: A benchmarking framework developed by Microsoft for testing browser performance.

These alternatives offer various features, such as support for asynchronous tests, caching, and more advanced analysis tools.