Benchmark: zxcvvvv - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var i = 0;

Tests:

for
i++;
minus
i--

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
minus

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the information provided and explain it in detail.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing various JavaScript operations, specifically incrementing (`i++`) and decrementing (`i--`) variables in a loop (in this case, a simple `for` loop). The tests are designed to measure how quickly each operation can be executed.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Incrementing (`i++`)**: This option increments the variable `i` by 1.
2. **Decrementing (`i--`)**: This option decrements the variable `i` by 1.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Incrementing (`i++`)**
Pros:

* Simpler to understand and implement
* Typically faster, as it only requires a single operation (increment)

Cons:

* May not be representative of real-world scenarios that often involve more complex incrementing operations

**Decrementing (`i--`)**

Pros:

* More realistic, as decrementing is commonly used in loops and algorithms
* Can help identify issues with the compiler or interpreter's behavior when dealing with decrementing variables

Cons:

* Typically slower than incrementing due to the need for two separate instructions (decrement followed by increment)

**Other considerations**

* The tests do not account for other factors that may affect performance, such as:
	+ Memory allocation and deallocation
	+ Cache misses
	+ Branch prediction

**Library usage**

There is no explicit mention of any libraries being used in the benchmark. However, it's likely that the JavaScript engine being tested (e.g., V8) has its own built-in optimizations and features.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The tests do not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the basic incrementing and decrementing operations mentioned earlier. It's possible that more complex tests could be created to utilize advanced features like closures, async/await, or Web Workers, but these are not present in this specific benchmark.

**Alternative alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring performance in JavaScript include:

* **Benchmark.org**: Similar to MeasureThat.net, but with a larger collection of benchmarks and more testing scenarios.
* **Bench.js**: A modern, browser-agnostic benchmarking library that provides a simple way to measure performance.
* **Google Benchmark**: A lightweight, header-only benchmarking library designed for Node.js.

Keep in mind that each tool has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on specific needs and requirements.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Mac OS X 10.13.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	357753600.0 Ops/sec
minus	358651136.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

zxcvvvv (version: 0)

zcxv

Comparing performance of: for vs minus

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

minus

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):