var appState = "1";
var regex = /^[0-3]$/;
var arr = ['1', '2', '3', '4'];
regex.test(appState);
arr.includes(appState);
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
RegEx.test | |
Array.includes |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
RegEx.test | 5884594.0 Ops/sec |
Array.includes | 6154063.5 Ops/sec |
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!
What is being tested?
The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, each comparing two different approaches: Regex.test
and Array.includes
.
Options compared:
appState
) matches a certain pattern.Pros and Cons of each approach:
Library used in the test case:
None, as these two methods are built-in JavaScript functions. However, if we were to extend this comparison to other libraries or frameworks, some examples include:
lodash
(which includes its own implementation of includes
)moment.js
(which has a different approach to date/time matching)Special JS feature or syntax:
None are explicitly mentioned in the provided code. However, if we were to consider more advanced JavaScript features, we might look at:
Other alternatives:
If you're looking for alternative approaches to benchmarking JavaScript performance, consider:
I hope this explanation helps!