Benchmark: Try/Catch Performance2

Tests:

No Try/Catch
let j = 0; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { j++; }
Try/Catch
let j = 0; for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { try { j++; } catch {} }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
No Try/Catch
Try/Catch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested on the provided JSON.

**Benchmark Definition**: The website is using a simple JavaScript microbenchmark to compare the performance of two approaches: executing code without any try-catch block (`No Try/Catch`) and executing code with a try-catch block (`Try/Catch`). In both cases, the code increments a variable `j` 1000 times in a loop.

**Options being compared**:

1. **No Try/Catch**: This option doesn't have any additional overhead or processing related to try-catch blocks.
2. **Try/Catch**: This option has an additional layer of processing due to the try-catch block, which catches and handles exceptions.

**Pros and Cons**:

* **No Try/Catch**:
	+ Pros: No additional overhead, simpler execution path.
	+ Cons: May not be as reliable or robust in handling errors, as any unhandled exceptions can crash the application.
* **Try/Catch**:
	+ Pros: Robust error handling, ensures that application doesn't crash due to unhandled exceptions. However, may incur a slight performance penalty due to additional processing.
	+ Cons: May introduce some overhead and complexity in handling errors.

**Library/Features used**: There is no explicit library mentioned in the JSON, but it's likely using built-in JavaScript features to execute these benchmarks. The try-catch block itself is a fundamental feature of JavaScript that allows developers to catch and handle exceptions.

**Special JS feature or syntax**: There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in the provided code snippets.

**Other alternatives**:

If you wanted to test similar benchmarks, you could consider adding more options, such as:

* **Try/Catch with specific error handling**: Examine how different error handling strategies (e.g., `try { } catch (e) { e.preventDefault(); }`) affect performance.
* **Async/Await**: Compare the performance of synchronous and asynchronous code execution using async/await syntax.
* **Closure-based approaches**: Test the performance of using closures to encapsulate variables, rather than global scope.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require additional modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases.

In terms of other alternatives for running JavaScript benchmarks like MeasureThat.net, you could consider:

* JavaScript engines' built-in profiling tools (e.g., Chrome DevTools' Profiling)
* External benchmarking frameworks (e.g., Benchmark.js, js-benchmark)
* Custom-built benchmarking scripts or tools

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/99.0.4844.83 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 99 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
No Try/Catch	1679076.1 Ops/sec
Try/Catch	1732690.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Try/Catch Performance2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: No Try/Catch vs Try/Catch

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

No Try/Catch

Try/Catch

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):