Benchmark: TESTE BENCH IFS X OBJT

Tests:

1231
const userGuess = 1995 const PIN = 2000 let guessOutput = '' if(userGuess >= 1000 && userGuess <= 9999 && Number.isInteger(userGuess)) { if(userGuess === PIN) { guessOutput = '1' } if(userGuess >= PIN + 2000) { guessOutput = '2' } else if(userGuess > PIN) { guessOutput = '3' } else if(userGuess <= PIN - 2000) { guessOutput = '4' } else if(userGuess < PIN) { guessOutput = '5' } }
123
const userGuess = 1995 const PIN = 2000 let guessOutput = '' function message() { const error_object = { [userGuess >= PIN + 2000]: 'Muito maior', [userGuess > PIN]: 'Maior', [userGuess <= PIN]: 'Muito menor', [userGuess < PIN]: 'Menor' } const correct_message = 'Congrats' return error_object[true] || correct_message } if(userGuess >= 1000 && userGuess <= 9999 && Number.isInteger(userGuess)) { guessOutput = message() }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1231
123

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'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines two separate benchmarks:

1. The first benchmark has an empty script preparation code and html preparation code, indicating that no specific setup or rendering is required for this test case.
2. The second benchmark also has an empty script preparation code and html preparation code, suggesting the same condition as the first one.

**Test Cases**

The two individual test cases are defined in the "Benchmark Definition" field:

1. **Test Case 1**

This test case uses a simple conditional statement to determine the output of a `guessOutput` variable based on user input (`userGuess`) and a predefined PIN value (2000). The test case checks if the user's guess falls within a specific range, and if so, assigns one of four possible values to `guessOutput`.

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* Focuses on a straightforward algorithm

Cons:

* Limited functionality compared to other approaches
* May not be representative of real-world use cases

**Test Case 2**

This test case builds upon the first one by using a function (`message()`) that returns an error message based on the user's guess and the PIN value. The `message()` function uses object destructuring to extract specific values from an object, which can be seen as a more complex approach.

Pros:

* More nuanced and realistic error handling
* Allows for different error messages depending on the situation

Cons:

* Adds complexity to the test case, making it harder to understand and implement
* May introduce unnecessary overhead or dependencies

**Libraries**

Neither of the test cases uses any external libraries. However, if we were to compare them to other approaches that might use libraries (e.g., async/await or promises), we could consider:

1. Using `async/await` instead of a callback-based approach like Test Case 1.
2. Utilizing a library like Lodash for object destructuring and utility functions in Test Case 2.

**Special JS Features**

There are no special JavaScript features (e.g., arrow functions, classes, or modern syntax) used in either test case.

**Other Alternatives**

If we were to compare these test cases to other approaches, we could consider:

1. Using a more robust testing framework like Jest or Mocha.
2. Adding additional test cases to cover different scenarios or edge cases.
3. Utilizing a mocking library (e.g., Sinon.js) to isolate dependencies and make the tests more reliable.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would depend on the specific requirements and goals of the benchmark, which are not explicitly stated in the provided information.

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
1231	7630955.0 Ops/sec
123	5416812.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

TESTE BENCH IFS X OBJT (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1231 vs 123

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1231

123

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):