Benchmark: Best practise for loop

Script Preparation code:


var names = ['George','Ringo','Paul','John'];

Tests:

best practice
for(var i=0,j=names.length;i<j;i++){ console.log(names[i]); }
normal
for(var i=0; i<names.length;i++){ console.log(names[i]); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
best practice
normal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to iterating over an array in JavaScript: a "best practice" loop and a "normal" loop. The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between these two approaches.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code includes:
```javascript
var names = ['George', 'Ringo', 'Paul', 'John'];
```
This line defines an array `names` containing four string elements.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code, which means that the benchmark only measures JavaScript performance and does not take into account DOM-related overhead or other non-JavaScript factors.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two test cases:

1. **Best Practice Loop**
```javascript
for (var i = 0, j = names.length; i < j; i++) {
  console.log(names[i]);
}
```
This loop iterates over the `names` array using a traditional `for` loop with a variable `j` that is assigned the length of the array. The loop increments `i` until it reaches the end of the array.

2. **Normal Loop**
```javascript
for (var i = 0; i < names.length; i++) {
  console.log(names[i]);
}
```
This loop also iterates over the `names` array, but uses a more common approach with a variable `i` that is incremented until it reaches the end of the array.

**Comparison and Considerations**

The benchmark compares these two approaches to see which one performs better in terms of speed. The pros and cons of each approach are:

* **Best Practice Loop**: This loop uses a traditional `for` loop with a separate variable for the array length. This can lead to more efficient memory usage, as the variable `j` is not used after the loop.
	+ Pros: Potential for better performance due to reduced memory usage.
	+ Cons: May be less readable or intuitive for some developers.
* **Normal Loop**: This loop uses a traditional `for` loop without a separate variable for the array length. This can lead to more complex calculations, as the loop condition and increment need to be handled separately.
	+ Pros: More readable and intuitive for many developers.
	+ Cons: May result in slower performance due to increased memory usage.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark does not account for other factors that may affect performance, such as:
	+ Browser or JavaScript engine optimizations
	+ Cache effects (if any)
	+ Other non-JavaScript factors like DOM rendering

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark. No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark, you could consider adding more test cases with different array sizes, shapes, or types (e.g., objects instead of arrays). You might also want to explore other iteration methods, such as:

* `forEach`
* `map`
* `reduce`
* Recursive functions

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches may be negligible for small datasets, but can become significant with larger datasets.

Feel free to ask if you have any further questions!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
best practice	122385.1 Ops/sec
normal	119441.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Best practise for loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: best practice vs normal

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

best practice

normal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):