Benchmark: reduce X for - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var saldos = [1, 0, -2, -1, 3, 0, 1, 8, -10, 3, 0, -1, -3];
var contadorSaldoNegativo = 0;

Tests:

for
for (let i = 0; i < saldos.length; i++) { if (saldos[i] > 0) { contadorSaldoNegativo++; } }
reduce
let menorQueZero = (acc, cur) => acc + (cur < 0 ? 1 : 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
reduce

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/83.0.4103.61 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 83 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
for	60984.2 Ops/sec
reduce	716977344.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark test and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The `MeasureThat.net` website allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents two individual test cases: "for" and "reduce".

**Test Case 1: "for" Loop**

* **Script Preparation Code**: This code initializes an array `saldos` with sample values, including positive and negative numbers.
* **Html Preparation Code**: None (empty string).
* **Benchmark Definition**: The benchmark is defined as a JavaScript loop that iterates through the `saldos` array using a traditional `for` loop. Inside the loop, it checks if each element is greater than 0 and increments a counter (`contadorSaldoNegativo`) if true.
* **Options Compared**:
	+ **Traditional `for` loop**: Iterates over the array using an index variable (`i`) that increments on each iteration.
	+ **Alternative approach not specified**: No alternative implementation is provided in this test case.

Pros and Cons:

* Traditional `for` loops are straightforward to write and understand, but they can be less efficient due to the overhead of indexing into the array.
* Alternative approaches may provide better performance or efficiency, but require more complex logic.

**Test Case 2: "reduce" Function**

* **Benchmark Definition**: The benchmark is defined as a JavaScript implementation of the `reduce` function. The implementation takes an accumulator (`acc`) and each element in the `saldos` array (`cur`). It returns `acc + (cur < 0 ? 1 : 0)`.
* **Options Compared**:
	+ **Built-in `Array.prototype.reduce()` method**: Uses a specialized algorithm to accumulate values from the array.
	+ **Custom implementation**: The user-provided implementation using a callback function.

Pros and Cons:

* Built-in `reduce` method is efficient and optimized for performance, but may not be well-understood by users who don't implement it themselves.
* Custom implementation provides more control over the logic, but can be less efficient or more complex.

**Library: Lodash**

The custom implementation of the "reduce" function appears to use a library called Lodash. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string processing, and functional programming.

In this specific case, the `reduce` function in Lodash takes an accumulator (`acc`) and each element in the array (`cur`). It returns `acc + (cur < 0 ? 1 : 0)`, which is a simplified implementation of the built-in `Array.prototype.reduce()` method.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to these benchmarks, here are some options:

* **Using `for...of` loop**: A modern JavaScript feature that allows iterating over arrays without using traditional indexing.
* **Using `forEach()` or `map()` methods**: Alternative array manipulation functions that can be used instead of traditional loops.
* **Using WebAssembly (WASM)**: A binary format for representing code that can run on web browsers and other platforms, potentially offering better performance.

Keep in mind that each alternative approach may have its own trade-offs in terms of readability, maintainability, and performance.

Related benchmarks:

reduce X for (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: for vs reduce

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

for

reduce

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):