Benchmark: Try/catch vs .catch

Tests:

Try/catch
const getPerson = async () => { try { const response = await fetch("https://swapi.dev/api/people/1/", "GET") console.log({ response }) } catch (e) { console.error(e); } } getPerson()
.catch
fetch("https://swapi.dev/api/people/1/", "GET").then((response) => { console.log({ response }) }).catch((e) => console.error(e))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Try/catch
.catch

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to handling errors in JavaScript: try-catch blocks and the .catch() method on promises. The test uses the Fetch API to make a GET request to the SWAPI.dev API.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Try-Catch Block**: This approach wraps the code that makes the Fetch API request in a try-catch block. If an error occurs, the catch clause is executed.
2. **.catch() Method on Promises**: This approach uses the .catch() method on the promise returned by the Fetch API. If an error occurs, it's caught and handled.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Try-Catch Block**:
	* Pros: Can handle errors in a more explicit way, allowing for custom error handling.
	* Cons: Can lead to slower execution times due to the overhead of evaluating the try-catch block.
2. **.catch() Method on Promises**:
	* Pros: More concise and efficient, as it only applies to promises.
	* Cons: May not provide enough control over error handling, as the catch clause is executed regardless of whether an error occurred.

**Library Used**

The Fetch API is used in both benchmark definitions. The Fetch API is a modern JavaScript library that allows for making HTTP requests from the browser or Node.js environment. It provides a promise-based interface for making requests, which makes it easier to handle errors and perform asynchronous operations.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses ES6+ syntax, including:

* Arrow functions (`() => { ... }`)
* Template literals (`\r\n const response = await fetch("..."); console.log({ response }); \r\n`)

These features are commonly used in modern JavaScript development and provide a concise way to write code.

**Other Alternatives**

If the Try-Catch Block approach were not being compared, alternative error handling methods could include:

* **Error handlers**: Functions that can be attached to events or specific conditions to handle errors.
* **Global error handlers**: Functions that can be registered globally to catch and handle errors in all parts of the application.

However, these alternatives are not being tested in this benchmark, as the focus is on comparing Try-Catch Blocks with .catch() Method on Promises.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 123 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Try/catch	84598.3 Ops/sec
.catch	84841.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Try/catch vs .catch (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Try/catch vs .catch

Created: 8 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Try/catch

.catch

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):