Benchmark: test underscore contains

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/underscore@1.13.6/underscore-umd-min.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
var contains = function (array, item) {
    for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) {
        if (array[i] === item) {
            return true;
        }
    }
    return false;
                                     };</script>

Script Preparation code:

var primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,97]

Tests:

vanilla
contains(primes, 79);
underscore
_.contains(primes, 79);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
vanilla
underscore

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON defines two benchmarks:

1. `test underscore contains`: This benchmark is defined by the `Script Preparation Code` section, which includes a JavaScript snippet that creates an array of prime numbers (`primes`) and a function `contains` that checks if an item is present in the array.
2. The benchmark definition itself refers to another JSON file or resource (not shown) that contains two test cases:
	* `vanilla`: A vanilla JavaScript implementation of the `contains` function using only standard JavaScript features.
	* `_underscore`: An implementation using the Underscore.js library, which provides a concise way to implement common functional programming utilities.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two implementations:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: The implementation without any external libraries or frameworks. This test measures the performance of standard JavaScript features.
2. **Underscore.js**: An implementation that uses the Underscore.js library, which provides a set of reusable functions for common tasks.

**Pros and Cons**

**Vanilla JavaScript:**

Pros:

* No external dependencies or overhead
* Meets basic JavaScript requirements

Cons:

* May be slower due to the lack of optimization techniques built into libraries like Underscore.js
* Less concise code compared to library-based implementations

**Underscore.js:**

Pros:

* Provides a concise and readable implementation of the `contains` function
* Optimized for performance, as it leverages the underlying JavaScript engine's optimizations

Cons:

* Requires an additional dependency (the Underscore.js library)
* May introduce overhead due to the need to load and initialize the library

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also measures the device platform (Desktop), operating system (Windows), and browser (Chrome 116) used for each test run. This information can help identify potential hardware or software-related factors that might affect performance.

**Library: Underscore.js**

Underscore.js is a popular JavaScript library that provides a set of reusable functions for common tasks, such as:

* Array manipulation (e.g., `contains`, `filter`, `map`)
* Functional programming utilities (e.g., `each`, `invoke`)
* String manipulation (e.g., `escape`, `unescape`)

The Underscore.js library is designed to provide a concise and expressive way to implement common tasks, making the code more readable and maintainable.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The implementation relies on standard JavaScript features, such as variables, functions, arrays, and loops.

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/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
vanilla	3859115.2 Ops/sec
underscore	3746366.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test underscore contains (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanilla vs underscore

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

vanilla

underscore

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):