Benchmark: new TypedArray() vs TypedArray.of()

Tests:

new
const array = new Float32Array([1, 2, 3]);
.of()
const array = Float32Array.of(1, 2, 3);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new
.of()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the JavaScript microbenchmark being tested on MeasureThat.net.

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for creating TypedArray objects: using the `new` keyword (`new Float32Array([1, 2, 3])`) and using the `.of()` method (`Float32Array.of(1, 2, 3)`).

**New Approach (using `new`)**

* The `new` keyword is used to create a new instance of the TypedArray constructor. In this case, `Float32Array`.
* The callback function passed to the `TypedArray` constructor is used to initialize the array with values.

Pros:

1. More flexible: allows for passing options and callbacks when creating the TypedArray.
2. Compatible with older browsers that don't support `.of()` method.

Cons:

1. Less concise: requires more code than using `.of()`.
2. May lead to performance issues if not implemented correctly (e.g., using `new` can create a temporary object that's then wrapped in the final TypedArray, which can be slower).

**Of Approach (.of())**

* The `.of()` method is used to create a new TypedArray from an array-like object or other iterable.
* In this case, it's used with an array of numbers.

Pros:

1. More concise: requires less code than using the `new` keyword.
2. Efficient: can be faster than using `new`, especially for larger arrays.

Cons:

1. Less flexible: doesn't allow for passing options or callbacks when creating the TypedArray.
2. May not work in older browsers that don't support `.of()` method.

**Library Used**

The `Float32Array` and `TypedArray` constructors are part of the Web API (ECMAScript standard), which means they're native to JavaScript.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark, other than using TypedArrays, which is a modern web development concept.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to create TypedArray objects in JavaScript, the `.of()` method is generally considered more efficient and concise. However, if you're working with older browsers that don't support `.of()`, or if you need more control over the creation process, using the `new` keyword might be a better option.

In general, for most use cases, using the `.of()` method is the recommended approach, as it provides better performance and conciseness.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/113.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 113 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new	7355355.0 Ops/sec
.of()	12192884.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

new TypedArray() vs TypedArray.of() (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: new vs .of()

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

new

.of()

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):