Benchmark: .endsWith vs last c

Script Preparation code:

var stringToCheck = 'askhgdhagksdh/asdas/';

var result = null;

Tests:

.endsWith
result = stringToCheck.endsWith("/");
.includes
result = stringToCheck.indexOf("/", stringToCheck.length - 1)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.endsWith
.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:108.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/108.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 108 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.endsWith	263701888.0 Ops/sec
.includes	34125276.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark named "endsWith vs last c". This benchmark aims to compare the performance of two different approaches for checking if a string ends with a certain substring:

1. `.endsWith()`
2. Using `indexOf()` in reverse

**Script Preparation Code:**
```javascript
var stringToCheck = 'askhgdhagksdh/asdas/';
var result = null;
```
This code initializes a test string `stringToCheck` and sets the initial value of the variable `result` to `null`. The purpose is to ensure that the benchmarked function will overwrite this value with its result.

**Html Preparation Code:**
There is no HTML preparation code provided, which suggests that the benchmark is not dependent on any specific HTML structure or rendering.

**Individual Test Cases:**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **".endsWith"**: This test case runs the `.endsWith()` method on the `stringToCheck` variable.
```javascript
result = stringToCheck.endsWith("/");
```
2. **".includes"**: This test case uses `indexOf()` in reverse to check if the last character of the `stringToCheck` is the same as the specified substring.
```javascript
result = stringToCheck.indexOf("/", stringToCheck.length - 1);
```
**What's being compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of `.endsWith()` and the custom implementation using `indexOf()` in reverse. This comparison aims to determine which approach is faster for this specific use case.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **.endsWith():**
	* Pros:
		+ More intuitive and readable code
		+ Easier to understand and maintain
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the method call overhead
2. Custom implementation using `indexOf()` in reverse:
	* Pros:
		+ Can potentially be faster since it avoids the method call overhead
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable and more complex code
		+ May require additional bookkeeping (e.g., handling null or undefined inputs)

**Library used:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may have built-in implementations of `.endsWith()` or `indexOf()`, which could affect the results.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippets. If there were any special features or syntax used, they would likely be related to JavaScript engine-specific optimizations or browser-specific APIs.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for checking if a string ends with a certain substring, here are some other options:

1. Using `substr()` and comparing the result:
```javascript
result = stringToCheck.substring(stringToCheck.length - x).equals("/"); // assuming x is the length of the substring
```
2. Utilizing a library like Lodash or Underscore.js for the `.endsWith()` method:
```javascript
const _ = require('lodash');
result = _.endsWith(stringToCheck, "/");
```
3. Implementing a custom string suffix check using bitwise operations (e.g., using `&` and masking):

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics or trade-offs compared to the original `.endsWith()` method.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the provided benchmark definition!

Related benchmarks:

.endsWith vs last c (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .endsWith vs .includes

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.endsWith

.includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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