Benchmark: For const of vs Map

Script Preparation code:

var strs = Array.from(new Array(10000)).map(() => 'String concat. ')
var result = []

Tests:

Push
for (const str of strs) { result.push(str) }
Join
result = strs.map((a) => a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Push
Join

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for iterating over an array of strings: `for...of` with `const` declaration and `Array.prototype.map()` method.

**Script Preparation Code**
The script prepares an array of 10,000 strings by concatenating the string "String concat. " to each element in the array.

**Html Preparation Code**
There is no HTML preparation code provided, which means that the benchmark doesn't involve any DOM-related operations or interactions with a web page.

**Individual Test Cases**

1. **Push**
This test case uses a `for...of` loop with `const` declaration to iterate over the `strs` array and push each string into the `result` array.
2. **Join**
This test case uses the `Array.prototype.map()` method to transform each element in the `strs` array and store the result in the `result` array.

**Library Used: None**
There is no library used in this benchmark, which means that all operations are performed using standard JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
The benchmark uses the `for...of` loop with `const` declaration, which is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7). This loop allows for more concise and expressive iteration over arrays.

**Pros and Cons**

* **For...of loop with const**: Pros:
	+ More concise and expressive way to iterate over arrays
	+ Reduces the need for explicit indexing and array length checks
	+ Can improve code readability
* **Array.prototype.map() method**: Pros:
	+ Provides a more functional programming style of iteration
	+ Allows for easier transformation of data without mutating the original array
	+ Can be more efficient in some cases, as it uses a single pass over the array

Cons:

* **For...of loop with const**: May have higher overhead due to additional type checks and bounds checking.
* **Array.prototype.map() method**: May have higher overhead due to the need to create a new array object.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare these approaches, you could also consider using other methods such as:

* Using `forEach()` loop with an arrow function
* Using `for` loop with indexing and bounds checking
* Using `reduce()` method instead of `map()`

However, the `for...of` loop with `const` declaration is a relatively new feature that provides a concise and expressive way to iterate over arrays, making it a good choice for this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 122 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Push	682.9 Ops/sec
Join	8445.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

For const of vs Map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Push vs Join

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Push

Join

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):