Benchmark: for vs fill - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

for
let retArray = []; for (var i = 0; i < 3; i++) { retArray.push(0); }
fill
new Array(3).fill(0)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
fill

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/112.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 112 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	63022352.0 Ops/sec
fill	4703672.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by the JSON object:

```json
{
    "Name": "for vs fill",
    "Description": null,
    "Script Preparation Code": null,
    "Html Preparation Code": null
}
```

This benchmark compares two different approaches to create an array of zeros: using a `for` loop (`"for"` test case) versus using the `fill()` method (`"fill"` test case).

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options:

1. **For Loop**: Using a traditional `for` loop to create an array and push zeros into it.
2. **Fill Method**: Using the `new Array(3).fill(0)` syntax to create an array and fill it with zeros.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **For Loop**
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to understand and implement for beginners.
		+ Can be used in situations where dynamic array creation is necessary.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose and slower than the `fill()` method.
		+ May lead to performance issues if not optimized properly (e.g., using `let` instead of `var`, avoiding unnecessary assignments).
2. **Fill Method**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster and more concise than the `for` loop approach.
		+ Does not require manual memory management or assignment operations.
	* Cons:
		+ May be less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with this syntax.

**Special Library or Syntax**

None in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that both approaches use standard JavaScript features: arrays and loops. The `fill()` method is a relatively modern addition to the language (introduced in ECMAScript 2015), but its usage is widely supported across modern browsers and environments.

**Other Considerations**

When optimizing JavaScript performance, it's essential to consider the following factors:

* **Variable hoisting**: Avoid using variables or functions that are not immediately available due to hoisting behavior.
* **Scope and closure**: Understand how scope and closures affect variable accessibility and behavior.
* **Memory allocation**: Be mindful of memory allocation patterns, especially when working with dynamic arrays or large datasets.

**Alternative Approaches**

For creating an array of zeros, some alternative approaches you might consider include:

1. **Array.from() method**: Using `Array.from(new Array(3), () => 0)` to create an array and fill it with zeros.
2. **Array constructor with spread syntax**: Creating an array using the spread operator (`[]...new Array(3).fill(0)`) or the `new` keyword (`new (new Array(3).fill(0))`);
3. **Typed arrays**: Using a typed array like `Int8Array` or `Uint8Array`, which are optimized for large numeric data.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, and some might be more suitable depending on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

for vs fill (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs fill

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

fill

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):