Benchmark: array find vs. some

Tests:

array find
var a = ['hello', 'a', 'bc']; var b = !!a.find(item => item === 'bc');
array some
var a = ['hello', 'a', 'bc']; var b = a.some(item => item === 'bc');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array find
array some

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and its pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches for finding an element in an array: the traditional `concat()` method with `find()` and the new ES6 spread operator (`...`) with `some()`.

**Traditional Approach (Array Find)**

* **Script**: In the benchmark definition, a JavaScript script is provided that defines an array `a` containing three elements: `"hello"`, `"a"`, and `"bc"`.
* **Test Case**: The test case runs this script to find the index of the element `"bc"` in the array using the `find()` method with a callback function. The `!!` operator is used to convert the result to a boolean value (true or false).
* **Purpose**: This test measures the performance of finding an element in an array using the traditional approach.

**New Approach (Array Find)**

* **Script**: Similar to the traditional approach, but instead of using `concat()`, the script uses the spread operator (`...`) with the `some()` method.
* **Test Case**: The test case runs this script to find the same element `"bc"` in the array using the new approach.

**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

1. Traditional Approach (Array Find): Using `concat()` and `find()`
2. New Approach (Array Find): Using the spread operator (`...`) with `some()`

**Pros and Cons**

* **Traditional Approach (Array Find)**:
	+ Pros: Well-established, widely supported, easy to understand.
	+ Cons: Can be slower for large arrays due to the overhead of concatenating elements.
* **New Approach (Array Find)**:
	+ Pros: More efficient for large arrays since it doesn't require concatenation. Also, more concise and expressive.
	+ Cons: May not work as expected in older browsers or environments that don't support the spread operator.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used beyond standard JavaScript features.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The spread operator (`...`) is a new feature introduced in ES6 (ECMAScript 2015). It allows for more concise and expressive code by expanding an array or object into its constituent parts. In this benchmark, the spread operator is used with the `some()` method to find elements that match a certain condition.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to test other approaches for finding elements in arrays, some alternatives could be:

* Using `indexOf()`: This method searches for the first occurrence of an element in an array and returns its index. It can be slower than `find()` or `some()`.
* Using `forEach()`: While not designed specifically for finding elements, `forEach()` can be used with a callback function to iterate through an array and check each element.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics compared to the traditional approach (Array Find) and the new approach (Array Find).

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array find	63068036.0 Ops/sec
array some	62134348.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array find vs. some (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: array find vs array some

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array find

array some

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):