Benchmark: try-catch vs return with console log

Tests:

try-catch error
try { console.log(validate()) } catch(e) { console.log(e) }; function validate() { throw new Error("new error") }
return
console.log(validate()) function validate() { return new Error("new error") }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
try-catch error
return

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 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
try-catch error	84680.4 Ops/sec
return	92258.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Description**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches: using a try-catch block with an error object, and using the return keyword with a console log statement.

In the first test case, `try-catch error`, the code is wrapped in a try-catch block. The function `validate()` throws an Error object, which is then caught by the catch block. The code logs both the original error message (`new error`) and the error object itself to the console using `console.log(e)`.

In the second test case, `return`, the code uses the return keyword with a console log statement inside the function `validate()`. When the function is called, it returns an Error object. The returned value is logged directly to the console without any additional processing.

**Comparison of Options**

The two approaches have different characteristics:

1. **Try-catch block (try-catch error)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a clear and explicit way to handle errors.
		+ Allows for more robust error handling, such as logging or notifying the user.
		+ Can be used with other error-handling mechanisms, like retrying or fallbacks.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds overhead due to the check for `e` in the catch block.
		+ May lead to slower execution times if not optimized correctly.
2. **Return keyword (return)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and straightforward code structure.
		+ Can be faster since there's no need to check for an error object.
	* Cons:
		+ Less explicit or robust than try-catch handling.
		+ May not provide sufficient protection against errors, especially if the returned value is used without proper checks.

**Library Used: None**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark JSON. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript environments or frameworks might have built-in error-handling mechanisms or logging functions that could be utilized alongside these approaches.

**Special JS Features/Syntax: Error Objects and Throw Statements**

Error objects and throw statements are not explicitly used in the provided benchmark test cases. The `throw` keyword is used to specify an exception, but it's not necessary to create an error object manually in this context. This suggests that the focus of the benchmark is on comparing the two code structures (try-catch vs return) rather than exploring other aspects of JavaScript error handling.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to this benchmark or want to explore different approaches, consider the following:

* Use `async/await` syntax instead of try-catch blocks.
* Employ promise-based error handling mechanisms.
* Compare different logging libraries or frameworks (e.g., console.log vs. a dedicated logging library).
* Investigate performance differences between V8 and other JavaScript engines.

Keep in mind that benchmarks often have varying levels of relevance and applicability, depending on the specific use case and context.

Related benchmarks:

try-catch vs return with console log (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: try-catch error vs return

Created: 5 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

try-catch error

return

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):