Benchmark: Blahdfsfs - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

blah2323gd
console.log("blah");
blah22323
console.log("blah2");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
blah2323gd
blah22323

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_5) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.1.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 13 on Mac OS X 10.15.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
blah2323gd	890870.2 Ops/sec
blah22323	842614.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is designed to measure the performance of JavaScript code across different browsers, devices, and operating systems. The provided JSON data represents a single benchmark with two test cases.

The primary focus of this benchmark is to compare the performance of simple JavaScript code that outputs "blah" using `console.log()` in two slightly different variations: `console.log("blah")` and `console.log("blah2")`.

**Options compared**

In this case, only one option is being compared:

1. **Console.log() with variable assignment**: The first test case, `"console.log("blah");"`, assigns a value to the variable "blah" before logging it.
2. **Console.log() without variable assignment**: The second test case, `"console.log("blah2");"`, does not assign a value to any variable and directly logs "blah2".

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Variable assignment**:
	* Pros: Can be beneficial for cases where the output needs to be cached or reused.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to memory allocation, garbage collection, and potential type conversions.
2. **No variable assignment**:
	* Pros: Reduces overhead by avoiding unnecessary memory allocations and type conversions.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for cases where the output needs to be cached or reused.

In general, if performance is a top priority and the output doesn't require caching or reuse, the no-assignment approach might be preferable. However, if there are specific use cases that benefit from variable assignment, the assigned approach might be more suitable.

**Library usage**

There is no library being used in this benchmark. The code snippets provided are standalone JavaScript examples.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None of the test cases utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond basic `console.log()` functionality.

**Other alternatives**

If you'd like to compare other approaches, here are some additional options that might be interesting:

* Using a different logging function (e.g., `console.error()`, `alert()`)
* Comparing performance with and without the use of a JavaScript engine's Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation
* Investigating the impact of async/await versus traditional callbacks on performance

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require additional setup, modifications to the benchmark script, or the use of specialized libraries.

Related benchmarks:

Blahdfsfs (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: blah2323gd vs blah22323

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

blah2323gd

blah22323

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):