Benchmark: Try catch - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

fn
const tryCatch = async (next, fn) => { try { await fn(); } catch (err) { next(err); } } const fnn = async () => { await console.log('hello'); } tryCatch(console.error, fnn);
fn error
const tryCatch = async (next, fn) => { try { await fn(); } catch (err) { next(err); } } const fnn = async () => { throw new Error("Error"); } tryCatch(console.error, fnn);
try
const fnn = async () => { await console.log('hello'); } (async () => { try { await fnn(); } catch (err) { console.error(err); } })();
catch
const fnn = async () => { throw new Error("Error");; } (async () => { try { await fnn(); } catch (err) { console.error(err); } })();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
fn
fn error
try
catch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_4) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 13 on Mac OS X 10.15.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
fn	446838.4 Ops/sec
fn error	248340.6 Ops/sec
try	465427.8 Ops/sec
catch	257235.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript code is essential in today's web development landscape, and MeasureThat.net provides a valuable resource for developers to do so.

Let's dive into the benchmark definition json and analyze what's being tested:

**Benchmark Definition**
The provided JSON defines a benchmark with four test cases. The common theme among all test cases is the use of try-catch blocks in JavaScript functions.

Here are the test cases:

1. **try**: This test case uses an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE) that attempts to call another function, `fnn`, which simply logs "hello" to the console.
2. **fn**: This test case is similar to the previous one but wraps the logging function in a try-catch block and passes it to another function, `tryCatch`, which handles errors using `console.error`.
3. **catch**: In this test case, an IIFE is used that attempts to call the same `fnn` function as before but catches any errors that occur during execution.
4. **fn error**: This test case is similar to the previous one but throws an error instead of logging a message.

Now, let's explore the options being compared:

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares four different scenarios:

a. **try**: The baseline scenario where the function attempts to execute without any try-catch block.
b. **fn**: A scenario where the function is wrapped in a try-catch block and passed to another function for error handling.
c. **catch**: A scenario where an IIFE is used that attempts to call the function but catches any errors using `try`-`catch`.
d. **fn error**: A scenario where the function throws an error instead of logging a message.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each option:

a. **try**:
	* Pros: No additional overhead from try-catch blocks.
	* Cons: The test is more likely to reveal issues related to error handling in production code.
b. **fn**:
	* Pros: Better error handling, as errors are passed to another function for processing.
	* Cons: Additional overhead due to the try-catch block and passing errors to another function.
c. **catch**:
	* Pros: Easy way to test error handling without wrapping in a try-catch block.
	* Cons: The test may not accurately reflect real-world scenarios, where try-catch blocks are often used more judiciously.
d. **fn error**:
	* Pros: Simulates production-like behavior, where errors are thrown and need to be handled.
	* Cons: May reveal performance issues due to the thrown error.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, no specific libraries are mentioned except for `console.error`, which is a built-in function in JavaScript. The `tryCatch` function is used as a wrapper around the logging function to demonstrate how errors can be handled using try-catch blocks.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None of the provided test cases utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await or Promises.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to measure performance in other areas, you might consider benchmarks that focus on:

* Async/await or Promise usage
* Performance of specific libraries or frameworks (e.g., React, Angular)
* Optimization techniques for specific types of code (e.g., loops, recursive functions)

Keep in mind that the MeasureThat.net platform is designed to provide a general-purpose benchmarking tool for JavaScript performance measurement. Feel free to explore and create your own benchmarks using this platform!

Related benchmarks:

Try catch (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: fn vs fn error vs try vs catch

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

fn

fn error

try

catch

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):