Benchmark: str.prototype.repeat() vs for loop

Tests:

str.prototype.repeat()
let str = '#' str.repeat(10000)
for loop
let str = '#' for(i=0; i<10000; i++){ str =+ str; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
str.prototype.repeat()
for loop

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.129 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 81 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
str.prototype.repeat()	8959017.0 Ops/sec
for loop	14348.0 Ops/sec

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 analyzed.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: `str.prototype.repeat()` and a traditional for loop, when used to repeat a string (`'#'`) 10,000 times. This benchmark aims to evaluate which method is faster on the given hardware.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`str.prototype.repeat()`**: A built-in JavaScript method that repeats a string.
2. **Traditional For Loop**: An explicit loop using a variable `i` to iterate 10,000 times and update the `str` variable inside the loop.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`str.prototype.repeat()`**:
	* Pros: This approach is concise and easy to read, leveraging built-in JavaScript functionality.
	* Cons: Performance might be slower due to the overhead of the method call and potentially unnecessary string allocations.
2. **Traditional For Loop**:
	* Pros: This approach can lead to more control over variable updates and potential optimizations through inline caching or other compiler tricks.
	* Cons: The code is longer, harder to read, and may require more manual memory management.

**Other Considerations**

Both approaches have performance implications related to:

* String allocation and deallocation overhead
* Loop iterations and branching (if present)
* Compiler optimizations

**Library and Special JS Features Used in Test Cases**

In the benchmark definition JSON, there is no explicit mention of any libraries or special JavaScript features beyond standard ECMAScript syntax.

**Alternatives to This Benchmark**

Other alternatives for similar benchmarks could include:

1. `Array.prototype.fill()` vs Traditional For Loop: Evaluating string filling with an array versus a manual loop.
2. Regular Expression Matching vs String Substring Method: Comparing the performance of regex matching against traditional substring methods.
3. DOM Manipulation vs jQuery Query: Benchmarking the efficiency of manipulating DOM elements using pure JavaScript or popular libraries like jQuery.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided JSON mentions that there is no Script Preparation Code and HTML Preparation Code mentioned, suggesting a focus on measuring raw execution time without additional setup requirements.

Related benchmarks:

str.prototype.repeat() vs for loop (version: 0)

benchmark performance between str.prototype.repeat() and for loop

Comparing performance of: str.prototype.repeat() vs for loop

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

str.prototype.repeat()

for loop

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):