Benchmark: Array fill method vs for loop

Tests:

For Loop fill
let arrayTest = new Array(2500); for (let i = 0; i < arrayTest.length; i++){ arrayTest[i] = Math.random(); }
Array Fill
let arrayTest = new Array(2500).fill(Math.random());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For Loop fill
Array Fill

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches for filling an array with random values:

1. **For Loop**: A traditional, manual loop using a `for` statement to iterate over the length of the array and assign a random value to each element.
2. **Array Fill**: Using the `fill()` method on an empty array, which automatically fills it with a specified value (in this case, `Math.random()`).

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* For Loop fill
* Array Fill

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **For Loop**: This approach is more control-oriented, allowing developers to understand exactly how their code executes.
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more educational for beginners to learn loop mechanics.
		+ Might be suitable for cases where a specific order of operations is required or performance cannot be compromised (e.g., cryptographic algorithms).
	* Cons:
		+ Generally slower due to the overhead of explicit loop control.
2. **Array Fill**: This approach uses built-in functionality, which can lead to more concise and readable code.
	* Pros:
		+ Often faster because it leverages optimized library functions.
		+ Can be a good choice when speed is crucial and readability takes precedence.

**Library/Utility:**

In the benchmark definition JSON, the `Array Fill` approach uses the built-in `fill()` method on an empty array. This method is part of the ECMAScript standard, making it widely supported across browsers.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark definition. The focus is solely on comparing two different approaches for filling an array with random values.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to test alternative methods for filling arrays, some possible alternatives could be:

* Using `Array.prototype.map()` followed by a reducer function
* Utilizing Web Workers or other parallel processing techniques
* Implementing a custom, hand-written loop using bitwise operations

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not necessarily be more efficient or relevant to the specific use case compared to the For Loop and Array Fill approaches.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The provided Script Preparation Code and Html Preparation Code are empty, suggesting that the benchmark is designed to focus on the performance difference between two programming approaches rather than other factors like HTML parsing or rendering.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For Loop fill	5160.5 Ops/sec
Array Fill	344951.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array fill method vs for loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For Loop fill vs Array Fill

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For Loop fill

Array Fill

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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