Benchmark: fdsdfgsdfg - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

a
function a(){ return 1; } function b(){ return 0; } let x; if(Math.random() < 0.5) { x = a(); }else{ x = b(); } x;
b
let x; if(Math.random() < 0.5) { x = 1; }else{ x = 0; } x;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a
b

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 their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is used to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The website allows users to define a benchmark by providing a script and comparing different approaches or variations of that approach.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided Benchmark Definition JSON contains the following information:

* `Name`: A unique identifier for the benchmark.
* `Description`: An optional description of the benchmark, which is empty in this case.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These fields are not used in this specific benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The provided test cases demonstrate two different approaches to a simple conditional statement:

Test Case 1:
```javascript
function a(){\r\n return 1;\r\n}\r\nfunction b(){\r\n  return 0;\r\n}\r\nlet x;\r\nif(Math.random() < 0.5) {\r\n  x = a();\r\n}else{\r\n  x = b();\r\n}\r\nx;
```
Test Case 2:
```javascript
let x;\r\nif(Math.random() < 0.5) {\r\n  x = 1;\r\n}else{\r\n  x = 0;\r\n}\r nx;
```
**Comparison**

In both test cases, the same conditional statement is used, but with a different approach:

* Test Case 1 uses a function call (`a()` and `b()`) to select a value for `x`. The `if` statement randomly chooses between the two functions.
* Test Case 2 uses a simple assignment to assign either `1` or `0` directly to `x`, based on the same random condition.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Test Case 1 (function call)**:
	+ Pros: Allows for more flexibility in implementing the conditional statement, as different functions can be used instead of just two values.
	+ Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to function calls, which could affect performance.
* **Test Case 2 (simple assignment)**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster and simpler than function calls, with less overhead.
	+ Cons: Limited flexibility in implementing the conditional statement, as only two values can be used.

**Library and Special JS Features**

Neither of these test cases uses any libraries or special JavaScript features. The code is simple and straightforward, making it easy to understand and compare.

**Other Alternatives**

Some other alternatives for comparing different approaches to a conditional statement might include:

* Using a `switch` statement instead of an `if` statement
* Implementing the conditional statement using bitwise operations (e.g., XOR)
* Comparing different data structures or algorithms for implementing the same logic

However, these alternatives would likely be more complex and may not provide meaningful comparisons in this specific benchmark.

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/70.0.3538.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 70 on Mac OS X 10.13.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
a	5078175.0 Ops/sec
b	5072353.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

fdsdfgsdfg (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: a vs b

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

a

b

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):