Benchmark: ROndinelli - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

for
for(i=0; i<10; i++){ console.log(i * 2) }
forEarch
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9].forEach((i) => {console.log(i * 2)})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
forEarch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks: "ROndinelli" (no script preparation or HTML code) and individual test cases for `for` and `forEach`. The benchmarks are designed to measure the performance of a specific piece of code in various browsers.

**Test Case 1: `for` Loop**

The benchmark uses a simple `for` loop that iterates from 0 to 9, logging the result of each iteration multiplied by 2 to the console. The script preparation code is empty, meaning no additional setup or initialization is performed before running the test.

**Comparison Options**

There are two comparison options for this benchmark:

1. **Native JavaScript**: This option uses the native JavaScript `for` loop implementation.
2. **V8 (Google's JavaScript Engine)**: This option uses V8, a popular open-source JavaScript engine developed by Google.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Native JavaScript**:
	+ Pros: Runs on the host machine's CPU, potentially faster execution times.
	+ Cons: May not be optimized for modern CPUs or architectures.
* **V8 (Google's JavaScript Engine)**:
	+ Pros: Optimized for performance, can take advantage of modern CPUs and architectures.
	+ Cons: Requires a separate JavaScript engine to run, may introduce additional overhead.

**Test Case 2: `forEach` Loop**

The benchmark uses an array with a single element (`[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]`) and applies the `forEach` method to iterate over it. The script preparation code is empty.

**Comparison Options**

There are two comparison options for this benchmark:

1. **Native JavaScript**: This option uses the native JavaScript `forEach` loop implementation.
2. **V8 (Google's JavaScript Engine)**: This option uses V8, a popular open-source JavaScript engine developed by Google.

**Pros and Cons**

**Library Used**

None of the benchmark test cases use any external libraries. The `forEach` method is built-in to JavaScript.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

Neither test case uses any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard `for` and `forEach` loops. No ES6+ syntax, no async/await, etc.

**Other Alternatives**

There are other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance:

* **Web Workers**: Can be used to offload CPU-intensive tasks from the main thread.
* **Benchmarking frameworks like Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark**: Provide a structured approach to writing and running benchmarks.
* **Browser-specific benchmarking tools**: Some browsers, like Chrome DevTools, provide built-in benchmarking tools for comparing performance.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own trade-offs and considerations.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:69.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/69.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 69 on Mac OS X 10.14

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	6233.1 Ops/sec
forEarch	6008.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

ROndinelli (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs forEarch

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

forEarch

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 24 days ago):