function randAlphanumCode() {
const n = Math.trunc(Math.random() * 1e3) % 62;
return n < 10
? n.toString()
: String.fromCodePoint(n + ( n < 36 ? 55 : 61 ));
}
function randAlphanumChar() {
const n = Math.trunc(Math.random() * 1e3) % 62;
return n < 10
? n.toString()
: String.fromCharCode(n + ( n < 36 ? 55 : 61 ));
}
randAlphanumChar()
randAlphanumCode()
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Char | |
Code |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Char | 2967241.0 Ops/sec |
Code | 2662045.0 Ops/sec |
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript benchmarks!
The provided JSON represents two benchmark definitions:
"Random ASCII alphanumeric string": This is the name and description of the benchmark, which tests the performance difference between String.fromCharCode
(or fromCharCode
) and String.fromCodePoint
when generating a random ASCII alphanumeric string.
Two individual test cases:
"Char"
: Tests the performance of randAlphanumChar()
, which generates a random character using String.fromCharCode
."Code"
: Tests the performance of randAlphanumCode()
, which generates a random code point using String.fromCodePoint
.Options compared:
fromCharCode
: Uses the charCodeAt()
method to get the Unicode code point of a character, and then passes it to String.fromCharCode()
to convert it back to a string.String.fromCodePoint
: Takes a Unicode code point as an argument and returns a string representing that code point.Pros and Cons:
fromCharCode
:charCodeAt()
method, which can be slower than direct encoding with String.fromCodePoint
String.fromCodePoint
:charCodeAt()
methodIn general, if you need a simple, human-readable solution, fromCharCode
might be sufficient. However, for more complex cases or performance-critical applications, String.fromCodePoint
is likely a better choice.
Library:
There isn't a specific library mentioned in the provided JSON. The functions used (randAlphanumChar()
and randAlphanumCode()
) are custom-written functions that generate random ASCII alphanumeric strings using charCodeAt()
or fromCodePoint
, respectively.
Special JS feature or syntax:
None of the code uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's required for generating a simple string. If you need to test specific features like async/await, Promises, or Web Workers, these benchmark definitions aren't suitable.
Alternatives:
For creating similar benchmarks, you could consider testing:
repeat()
method.btoa()
/atob()
).Feel free to explore these alternatives if you'd like to create more benchmarks!