Benchmark: String looping Lionel 1

Script Preparation code:

var all_digits = [];
for(let i=0; i<5_000; i++) {
    all_digits.push(Math.floor(Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER * Math.random()).toString())
}

Tests:

for loop
for(let digits of all_digits) { let sum = 0; for (const digit of digits) { sum += +digit; } }
Array.prototype.reduce.call
for(let digits of all_digits) { let sum = 0; sum = Array.prototype.reduce.call(digits, (prev, curr) => prev + +curr, 0); }
Array.prototype.reduce.apply
for(let digits of all_digits) { let sum = 0; sum = Array.prototype.reduce.apply(digits, [(prev, curr) => prev + +curr, 0]); }
Array.prototype.forEach
for(let digits of all_digits) { let sum = 0; Array.prototype.forEach.apply(digits, [(i) => sum += +i]); }
.split.reduce
for(let digits of all_digits) { let sum = 0; sum = digits.split('').reduce((prev, curr) => prev + +curr, 0); }
.split.forEach
for(let digits of all_digits) { let sum = 0; digits.split('').forEach((i) => sum += +i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for loop
Array.prototype.reduce.call
Array.prototype.reduce.apply
Array.prototype.forEach
.split.reduce
.split.forEach

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 dive into the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of different approaches for summing up digits in a string. The test case creates an array `all_digits` containing 5,000 random digits (between 0 and `Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER`) as strings. Then, it iterates over each digit in the array using four different methods:

1. For loop
2. `Array.prototype.reduce.call`
3. `Array.prototype.reduce.apply`
4. `Array.prototype.forEach`

The goal is to determine which approach is the most efficient.

**Approaches Comparison**

Here's a brief overview of each approach, their pros and cons, and alternative options:

### 1. For loop

```javascript
for (const digit of digits) {
    sum += +digit;
}
```

Pros: Simple and straightforward.
Cons: Can be slow for large arrays due to the overhead of explicit loop control.

Alternative: `Array.prototype.forEach` or `.split().forEach()` would have similar performance characteristics.

### 2. Array.prototype.reduce.call

```javascript
let sum = 0;
sum = Array.prototype.reduce.call(digits, (prev, curr) => prev + +curr, 0);
```

Pros: More concise and expressive than a traditional for loop.
Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the `call` method.

Alternative: Using `.reduce()` would be more efficient and readable.

### 3. Array.prototype.reduce.apply

```javascript
let sum = 0;
sum = Array.prototype.reduce.apply(digits, [(prev, curr) => prev + +curr, 0]);
```

Pros: Similar to `Array.prototype.reduce.call`, but with the added benefit of being able to use an arrow function.
Cons: Still incurs additional overhead due to the `apply` method.

Alternative: Using `.reduce()` would be more efficient and readable.

### 4. Array.prototype.forEach

```javascript
digits.forEach((i) => sum += +i);
```

Pros: Similar performance characteristics to a traditional for loop.
Cons: May not be as concise or expressive as other approaches.

Alternative: `Array.prototype.reduce()` would likely outperform this approach.

### 5. String.split().reduce()

```javascript
let sum = 0;
digits.split('').reduce((prev, curr) => prev + +curr, 0);
```

Pros: More concise and readable than traditional for loops or array methods.
Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the `split` method.

Alternative: Using `.forEach()` would have similar performance characteristics.

### 6. String.split().forEach()

```javascript
digits.split('').forEach((i) => sum += +i);
```

Pros: Similar performance characteristics to a traditional for loop.
Cons: May not be as concise or expressive as other approaches.

Alternative: `Array.prototype.reduce()` would likely outperform this approach.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark tests use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that some implementations might use libraries like Lodash to simplify array operations.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code is purely vanilla JavaScript.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.104 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for loop	690.5 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.reduce.call	63.6 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.reduce.apply	60.2 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.forEach	56.1 Ops/sec
.split.reduce	477.7 Ops/sec
.split.forEach	450.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

String looping Lionel 1 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: for loop vs Array.prototype.reduce.call vs Array.prototype.reduce.apply vs Array.prototype.forEach vs .split.reduce vs .split.forEach

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

for loop

Array.prototype.reduce.call

Array.prototype.reduce.apply

Array.prototype.forEach

.split.reduce

.split.forEach

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):