Benchmark: test for loops kme

Script Preparation code:

var a = [];
for(let index=0; index++; index<=100){
  a.append(index*2);
}

Tests:

for index
for(let index=0; index++; index<=100){ console.log(a[index]); }
for of
for(let b of a){ console.log(b); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for index
for of

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/114.0.1823.43

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for index	689677952.0 Ops/sec
for of	10072408.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of different JavaScript loop approaches is crucial for optimizing code and ensuring scalability.

The provided JSON represents two test cases: `for index` and `for of`. The script preparation code for both test cases creates an array `a` with elements from 0 to 200, doubling each value. The HTML preparation code is empty for this example.

**Loop Approaches Compared**

There are three loop approaches being compared:

1. **Traditional For Loop (`index <= 100`)**: This approach uses a traditional `for` loop with an index variable `index`, which increments until it reaches or exceeds the specified limit (100 in this case). The value of each element is accessed using `a[index]`.
2. **For...Of Loop (`b of a`)**: This approach uses a `for...of` loop, which iterates over an array and returns each element in sequence. In this test case, `b` takes the values from the `a` array.
3. **Iteration Without Index (`index <= 100`)**: This is not exactly a traditional loop, but rather iterating directly on the array without using an index variable.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Traditional For Loop**:
	* Pros: Can be easily modified to change the iteration limit or add conditional statements.
	* Cons: May lead to performance issues due to frequent checks on the `index` variable.
2. **For...Of Loop**:
	* Pros: Provides a more concise and readable way of iterating over arrays, with less chance of off-by-one errors.
	* Cons: May be slower than traditional for loops because of the iteration overhead.
3. **Iteration Without Index**:
	* Pros: Eliminates potential issues related to index out-of-bounds or off-by-one errors.
	* Cons: Requires careful handling of edge cases and can lead to more complex code.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing a loop approach, consider factors such as:

* Readability and maintainability
* Performance requirements (e.g., speed, memory usage)
* Code simplicity and conciseness

**Library Usage**

The provided test cases do not use any external libraries. However, the `for...of` loop is a standard JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the provided code snippets.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you need to optimize array iteration performance, consider exploring alternative approaches:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` with a callback function
* Utilizing Web Workers for parallel processing of large arrays
* Leveraging specialized libraries like `fast-for` or `iterator`

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on your specific use case and requirements.

In summary, the test cases compare three different loop approaches: traditional for loops, for...of loops, and iteration without index. Each has its pros and cons, and the choice depends on factors like readability, performance, and code simplicity.

Related benchmarks:

test for loops kme (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for index vs for of

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for index

for 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):