Benchmark: NESTEST2 - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function logg(text){
  console.log(text);
}

Tests:

Standard
var x = 100; for(var i=0;i<=100;i++){ logg(() => i * 2); }
ES6
var x = 100; for(var i=0;i<=100;i++){ logg((function(){return i * 2;})()); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Standard
ES6

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by two JSON objects: `Benchmark Definition` and `Script Preparation Code`.

* `Benchmark Definition`: This object defines the test case. In this case, we have two test cases:
	+ "Standard": This test case uses a simple for loop to calculate the result of multiplying 2 with each number from 0 to 100.
	+ "ES6": This test case is similar to the "Standard" test case, but it uses an arrow function (=>) and immediately invoked function expression (IIFE) syntax. The main difference is that the IIFE is called before the result is printed.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a custom `logg` function that prints its argument to the console. This function is used in both test cases.

**What's being tested?**

In essence, this benchmark tests the performance of JavaScript engines when executing simple arithmetic operations using different syntaxes (standard vs ES6).

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Standard (non-ES6) syntax**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported by older browsers and platforms.
	+ Cons: Less efficient due to the need for explicit function calls and IIFE syntax.
* **ES6 (arrow function and IIFE) syntax**:
	+ Pros: More concise and potentially more efficient, as it allows for implicit function call and reduces overhead.
	+ Cons: May not be supported by older browsers or platforms.

Another consideration is that the benchmark uses a simple arithmetic operation, which may not accurately reflect real-world usage. In reality, JavaScript engines often spend more time executing other tasks like parsing, garbage collection, and exception handling.

**Library usage**

There doesn't seem to be any explicit library used in this benchmark.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The ES6 test case uses two special features:

1. **Arrow function syntax (`=>`)**: This allows for concise function definitions that eliminate the need for `function` keyword.
2. **Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE) syntax (`()` after IIFE)`**: This calls the function immediately, even though it's not explicitly declared.

Both of these features are part of ES6 and are widely supported in modern browsers.

**Other alternatives**

Some alternative approaches could be:

* Using a different arithmetic operation, like string multiplication or modulo operations.
* Increasing the complexity of the test case by introducing more loops, conditional statements, or other operations.
* Adding more test cases to cover different scenarios, such as testing performance with large inputs or edge cases.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternatives depends on the specific goals and requirements of the benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Standard	829.4 Ops/sec
ES6	1016.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

NESTEST2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Standard vs ES6

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Standard

ES6

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Sumamry (model llama3.2:3b, generated 5 days ago):