Benchmark: javascript-performance-call-function-inside-for-loop

Tests:

case 1
var temp = []; for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { var b = plusOne(i); temp.push(b); } for (var j = 0; j < temp.length; j++) { console.log(j); } function plusOne(i) { return i+1; }
case 2
var temp = []; for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { var b = i + 1; temp.push(b); } for (var j = 0; j < temp.length; j++) { console.log(j); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
case 1
case 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its components.

**What is tested:**

The benchmark tests the performance of calling a function inside a for loop. Specifically, it compares two approaches:

1. Calling `plusOne(i)` directly within the loop (Case 2).
2. Assigning the result of `i + 1` to a variable `b` and then pushing `b` onto an array `temp` (Case 1).

**Options compared:**

* Case 1 uses a more traditional approach with explicit assignment and array push.
* Case 2 uses a more concise approach with direct function call inside the loop.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* **Case 1 (Explicit assignment):**
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to read and understand, especially for those familiar with traditional C-style programming.
		- Less prone to off-by-one errors if the indexing is not correct.
	+ Cons:
		- May incur additional overhead due to explicit assignment and array push.
* **Case 2 (Direct function call):**
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and compact, which can lead to better performance in some cases.
		- Less chance of off-by-one errors if the indexing is not correct.
	+ Cons:
		- May be less readable for those unfamiliar with this syntax.
		- Requires careful consideration of variable scope and lifetime.

**Library usage:**

None of the benchmark definitions explicitly use a library, but we can infer that `plusOne` function is likely implemented in a way that's similar to a simple arithmetic operation. Without more information, it's difficult to say for certain what this function does or how it's implemented.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

The test cases use the following special JavaScript features:

* The `var` keyword for variable declaration.
* The `for` loop construct.
* The `push` method on arrays.
* Function definitions (specifically, the `plusOne` function).

These features are all standard in JavaScript and don't require any additional setup or configuration to run.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to benchmarking performance, consider the following options:

1. **Using a just-in-time (JIT) compiler:** Some JavaScript engines, like V8 (used by Google Chrome), have built-in JIT compilers that can optimize code at runtime.
2. **Microbenchmarking frameworks:** Libraries like Benchmark.js or Microbenchmark provide additional features and configuration options for benchmarking performance.
3. **Native language benchmarks:** If you're interested in comparing the performance of native languages, consider using tools like `time` (on Linux/macOS) or `timeout` (on Windows).
4. **GPU-accelerated benchmarks:** For GPU-accelerated workloads, consider using frameworks like GLBenchmark or OpenCL.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking tool and approach depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
case 1	243.3 Ops/sec
case 2	262.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

javascript-performance-call-function-inside-for-loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: case 1 vs case 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

case 1

case 2

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):