Benchmark: ++ vs +1 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

++
let i = 0; while (i < 1E5) { i++ }
+1
let i = 0; while (i < 1E5) { i = i + 1 }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
++
+1

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros and cons of different approaches.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing two ways to increment a variable `i` in a while loop: using the post-increment operator (`++`) versus the pre-increment operator (`+1`). The goal is to determine which method is faster.

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Post-Increment Operator (`++`)**: This operator increments the value of `i` after it has been used in the expression. In the benchmark code, this means that `i` will be incremented by 1 at the end of each iteration.
2. **Pre-Increment Operator (`+1`)**: This operator adds 1 to the value of `i` before it is used in the expression. In the benchmark code, this means that `i + 1` will evaluate to the new value of `i` before the increment operation.

**Pros and Cons**

**Post-Increment Operator (`++`)**

Pros:

* Easier to read and write, as it clearly expresses the intention of incrementing `i`.
* May be faster in some cases, as it avoids adding an extra operation.

Cons:

* Can lead to subtle bugs if not used carefully, such as when used with array indices or other situations where the post-increment value is needed before the increment.
* May require additional memory allocation or caching optimizations.

**Pre-Increment Operator (`+1`)**

Pros:

* May be faster in some cases, as it allows the compiler to optimize away the unnecessary increment operation.
* Can improve performance in scenarios where the pre-increment value is critical.

Cons:

* More difficult to read and write, as it requires careful consideration of the post-increment value.
* May introduce bugs if not used carefully.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark code uses a simple while loop with a constant condition, which limits the scope for optimization. In real-world scenarios, more complex loops or conditions may require additional optimizations.
* The benchmark does not consider other factors that might affect performance, such as memory allocation, caching, or CPU pipeline effects.

**Library usage**

The benchmark code uses no external libraries besides built-in JavaScript functionality. This allows the results to be platform-agnostic and language-independent.

**Special JS features or syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond basic arithmetic operators and control structures. If it did, it would likely include additional information about those features in the description or code comments.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to measure this performance difference could involve:

* Using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler or Ahead-Of-Time (AOT) compilation strategy.
* Implementing custom CPU-specific optimizations for increment operations.
* Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines, such as V8 in Chrome vs. SpiderMonkey in Firefox.

In general, benchmarking such micro-optimizations is more relevant for production codebases that require fine-grained performance optimization. For most applications, using established languages and libraries will provide adequate performance without requiring significant custom optimizations.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
++	42007.5 Ops/sec
+1	42408.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

++ vs +1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ++ vs +1

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

++

+1

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):