Benchmark: Mycurioustest - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

parseInt
parseInt(9.81)
math.floor
Math.floor(9.81)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
parseInt
math.floor

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is an essential task for developers to optimize their code and ensure smooth user experiences.

**Benchmarking Purpose**

The provided JSON represents a simple benchmarking test case, where two built-in JavaScript functions are compared: `parseInt` and `Math.floor`. The benchmark aims to measure the execution speed of these functions on different platforms, browsers, devices, and operating systems.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1.  **`parseInt`**: Converts a string to an integer by ignoring the decimal part.
2.  **`Math.floor`**: Returns the largest integer less than or equal to the given number.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   `parseInt`: Pros:

*   Generally faster, as it uses a lookup table for common characters
    *   Can handle more complex parsing scenarios (e.g., negative numbers, leading zeros)
    *   Often used in legacy codebases or when compatibility is essential

Cons:

*   May have issues with non-numeric input or malformed strings
    *   Can be slower for simple cases due to the overhead of lookup tables
*   `Math.floor`: Pros:

*   Generally simpler and faster, as it uses a single multiplication operation
    *   Less prone to errors with invalid inputs
    *   Often used in modern codebases where simplicity and readability are valued

Cons:

*   May not be as effective for parsing complex strings or handling edge cases
    *   Can result in integer overflow if the input is too large

**Library Usage**

None of the test cases use external libraries.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

Neither test case uses any special JavaScript features or syntax, making it accessible to a wide range of software engineers with varying levels of expertise.

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives to measuring JavaScript performance include:

*   **Benchmarking frameworks**: Libraries like Benchmark.js or Jest provide more comprehensive benchmarking capabilities and better handling for concurrent execution.
*   **Profiling tools**: Built-in profiling tools in browsers (e.g., Chrome DevTools, Firefox Developer Edition) offer detailed information about code execution time, memory usage, and other performance metrics.
*   **Third-party libraries**: Tools like jsperf or Benchmark.js provide more advanced features and better handling for complex benchmarking scenarios.

Overall, MeasuringThat.net's simple yet informative benchmarking approach is suitable for small-scale tests or educational purposes. However, for more comprehensive performance analysis or production-ready optimizations, using a dedicated benchmarking framework or profiling tool may be necessary.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/109.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 109 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
parseInt	1741102464.0 Ops/sec
math.floor	1800638976.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Mycurioustest (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: parseInt vs math.floor

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

parseInt

math.floor

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):