Benchmark: ++i vs i++ v.2 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

i++ let
for (let i = 0; i < 100_000_000; i++) {}
i++ var
for (var i = 0; i < 100_000_000; i++) {}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
i++ let
i++ var

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
i++ let	40.5 Ops/sec
i++ var	39.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a set of options that are compared in this test. In this case, we have two main variations:

1. `++i` (post-increment)
2. `i++` (pre-increment)

Additionally, there are two types of variables being used: let and var.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of pre-increment (`i++`) with post-increment (`++i`) for both `let` and `var` variables. This means we're testing how different variable declarations affect the execution speed of this specific operation.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Post-Increment (`++i`)**:
	* Pros: Can be more intuitive and easier to read in some cases.
	* Cons: May not be as efficient due to the need for an additional memory access.
2. **Pre-Increment (`i++`)**:
	* Pros: Can lead to slightly better performance since it avoids the extra memory access.
	* Cons: May require more complex code and be less intuitive for some developers.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's likely that the JavaScript engine being tested (in this case, Chrome 118) has its own internal optimizations and caching mechanisms that might affect the results.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are two special features involved:

1. **let**: A block-scoped variable declaration introduced in ECMAScript 2015.
2. **var**: A function-scoped variable declaration also introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (although its usage has been discouraged in modern JavaScript).

Both `let` and `var` have different memory allocation behaviors, which can impact performance.

**Other Considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider factors like:

* Variable scope and hoisting
* Memory allocation and deallocation
* Cache locality and access patterns

These considerations can significantly affect the performance of your code, especially in microbenchmarking scenarios.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or testing different scenarios, here are some ideas:

1. **Tail Call Optimization**: Test the performance difference between tail recursion and non-tail recursive functions.
2. **Memoization**: Compare the execution speed of memoized vs. unmemoized recursive functions.
3. **Closures**: Investigate how closures affect performance in different contexts (e.g., function scope, block scope).
4. **Async Operations**: Measure the performance impact of synchronous vs. asynchronous operations on a web page.

Feel free to explore these alternatives or come up with your own test cases!

Related benchmarks:

++i vs i++ v.2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: i++ let vs i++ var

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

i++ let

i++ var

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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