Benchmark: Try/catch performance (JSON parse)--

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="test"></div>

Tests:

Try/catch
try { JSON.parse('{name":"John", "age":31, "city":"New York"}'); } catch(error) { console.log(error); }
Without try/catch
if(typeof 5 === 'number') { console.log('ok') }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Try/catch
Without try/catch

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.

**Overview**
The MeasureThat.net benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: `try`/`catch` and `without try`/`catch`.

**What's being tested?**

1. **Try/catch**: The test case measures the execution time of a simple `JSON.parse()` function call inside a `try` block, which is then caught by an associated `catch` block. This allows the browser to optimize the execution path and potentially improve performance.
2. **Without try/catch**: The second test case measures the execution time of the same `if(typeof 5 === 'number')` statement without any error handling (i.e., no `try`/`catch` block). This approach does not allow the browser to optimize the execution path.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Try/catch**: A way to handle errors in JavaScript, which allows the browser to optimize the execution path.
* **Without try/catch**: No error handling, which may lead to slower execution times due to additional overhead for parsing and executing the code.

**Pros and Cons**

**Try/catch:**

Pros:

* Allows the browser to optimize the execution path, potentially improving performance.
* Provides a way to handle errors in a controlled manner.

Cons:

* Adds extra overhead for error handling.
* May lead to slower execution times if the error is not caught.

**Without try/catch:**

Pros:

* No additional overhead for error handling.
* Faster execution times since there's no need to parse and execute error-handling code.

Cons:

* Does not provide a way to handle errors in a controlled manner.
* May lead to slower performance due to the lack of optimization by the browser.

**Library used (if applicable)**

None mentioned explicitly, but `JSON.parse()` is a built-in JavaScript method that's commonly used for parsing JSON data. The `try`/`catch` block is also a standard way to handle errors in JavaScript.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The `typeof 5 === 'number'` statement is an example of the `typeof` operator in JavaScript, which checks the type of a variable. This statement is used in both test cases.

**Alternative approaches**
Other alternatives to try/catch include:

* Using a `try` block with a custom error handling function (e.g., a callback function).
* Using a `finally` block to execute code regardless of whether an error occurs.
* Using a library like `async/await` for asynchronous programming, which can provide better performance and readability.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Try/catch	37381.0 Ops/sec
Without try/catch	110276.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Try/catch performance (JSON parse)-- (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Try/catch vs Without try/catch

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Try/catch

Without try/catch

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):