Benchmark: old range vs new range

Script Preparation code:

function rangefunction(number) {
  return Array.apply(null, { length: number }).map(eval.call, Number)
}

var rangevar = number => [...Array(number).keys()]

Tests:

old range
function range(number) { return Array.apply(null, { length: number }).map(eval.call, Number) } range(1000)
new range
const range = number => [...Array(number).keys()] range(1000)
old range - just use
rangefunction(1000)
new range - just use
rangevar(1000)
old range - just define
function range(number) { return Array.apply(null, { length: number }).map(eval.call, Number) }
new range - just define
const range = number => [...Array(number).keys()]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
old range
new range
old range - just use
new range - just use
old range - just define
new range - just define

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks is an essential task, and MeasureThat.net provides a platform for comparing different approaches.

The provided benchmark definition json specifies that the test case is designed to measure the performance difference between creating arrays using two methods:

1. **Using the `Array.apply` method with `eval`**: This approach creates an array of a specified length using the `Array.apply` method, which applies the provided function (in this case, `Number`) to each element of the array.
2. **Creating an array from 0 to `number - 1` using the spread operator (`...`)**: This approach uses the spread operator (`...`) to create an array with keys ranging from 0 to `number - 1`.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Using `Array.apply` with `eval`:**
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to understand and implement.
		- Works well for small arrays.
	- Cons:
		- Slower performance due to the use of `eval`.
		- Can be vulnerable to security issues if not properly sanitized.
* **Creating an array using the spread operator (`...`):**
	+ Pros:
		- Fast performance.
		- Modern and widely adopted syntax.
	- Cons:
		- May require additional setup or dependencies (e.g., modern browsers).
		- Less intuitive for some developers.

The benchmark results show that both approaches have similar performance, but the spread operator (`...`) approach is slightly faster in this specific test case. However, it's essential to note that this result might not be representative of all scenarios or JavaScript engines.

**Library and Purpose:**

In the provided benchmark definition json, two libraries are used:

1. **`Array.prototype.apply`**: This method applies a function to an array of elements.
2. **`...` (spread operator)**: This operator creates a new array from the given values.

These libraries are built-in to JavaScript and do not require additional dependencies.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

The spread operator (`...`) is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows creating arrays from an iterable sequence of values.

**Other Alternatives:**

For creating arrays, there are other approaches that can be used:

1. **`Array.from()`**: This method creates a new array from an iterable sequence of values.
2. **`Array.newInstance()`**: This method creates a new instance of the specified class in the `Array` type.

While these alternatives have their own advantages and disadvantages, they are not as widely adopted or performant as the spread operator (`...`) approach.

Keep in mind that performance optimization should be tailored to specific use cases and requirements. In this benchmark, both approaches have similar performance, but other factors like memory usage, cache efficiency, and code readability may influence the choice of implementation.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/55.0.2871.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 55 on Mac OS X 10.12.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
old range	7687.9 Ops/sec
new range	7960.5 Ops/sec
old range - just use	7784.8 Ops/sec
new range - just use	9304.3 Ops/sec
old range - just define	55451500.0 Ops/sec
new range - just define	54982604.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

old range vs new range (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: old range vs new range vs old range - just use vs new range - just use vs old range - just define vs new range - just define

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

old range

new range

old range - just use

new range - just use

old range - just define

new range - just define

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):