Benchmark: sometest1 - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

test1
const g = { e: [] } g.o = function(x) { g.e.push(...[1,2,3]) } g.o()
test2
let g = { e: [] } g.o = function(x) { g.e.push(...[1,2,3]) } g.o()
test3
var g = { e: [] } g.o = function(x) { g.e.push(...[1,2,3]) } g.o()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2
test3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of different JavaScript variable declarations (var, let, and const) in a simple function. The test cases are designed to compare the execution speed of these variables in different contexts.

**Variable Declaration Comparison**

In the benchmark, three test cases are presented:

1. **let g = { e: [] }**: This test case uses the `let` keyword for variable declaration.
2. **const g = { e: [] }**: This test case uses the `const` keyword for variable declaration.
3. **var g = { e: [] }**: This test case uses the `var` keyword for variable declaration.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **let**: The pros of using `let` are that it is block-scoped, which means its scope is limited to the current block (e.g., function or loop). This can lead to better performance because the variable is not visible outside the block. However, if you need to redeclare a `let` variable with the same name, JavaScript will throw an error.
*   **const**: The pros of using `const` are that it also has block-scoping and does not allow redeclaration with the same name. Additionally, `const` is immutable by default, which can improve performance since you don't need to worry about updating the variable's value. However, if you try to modify a `const` variable, JavaScript will throw an error.
*   **var**: The main con of using `var` is that its scope is function-scoped, meaning it is visible outside the current function. This can lead to performance issues because the variable can be accessed and modified from multiple places in your code.

**Library Used**

There doesn't appear to be any library used in this benchmark. However, some libraries may influence the results (e.g., optimization techniques or additional functionality).

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use special JavaScript features or syntax like ES6 classes, arrow functions, async/await, or Promises.

**Other Alternatives**

Some possible alternatives to measure variable declaration performance could include:

*   Using `var` with different scope levels (e.g., function, global)
*   Adding more complex logic within the function
*   Incorporating loops to improve the test's realism

These changes could provide a more accurate representation of real-world use cases and help identify which variable declaration is most efficient in various scenarios.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/113.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 113 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	85408680.0 Ops/sec
test2	21656138.0 Ops/sec
test3	21311712.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

sometest1 (version: 0)

var-let-const

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2 vs test3

Created: 3 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

test3

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):