Benchmark: empty function vs loop

Script Preparation code:

function loop() {
  Array.from({ length: 1000 }).forEach(() => {})
}

function empty() {}

Tests:

loop
loop()
empty
empty()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
loop
empty

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 9; SM-G950F) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 103 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
loop	5644.0 Ops/sec
empty	3339581.0 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 provided JSON data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two functions: `empty()` and an anonymous function that calls itself in a loop (`function loop() { ... }`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code provides the implementation of these two functions. The `loop()` function creates an array of 1000 elements using `Array.from()` and then iterates over it using `forEach()`, which doesn't do anything. The `empty()` function is a simple empty function.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code, so we can assume that this benchmark is focusing solely on the JavaScript execution performance.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. `loop`: This test case calls the `loop()` function and measures its execution time.
2. `empty`: This test case calls the `empty()` function and measures its execution time.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of these approaches:

* **Loop vs Empty Function**: The loop function creates an array of 1000 elements and then iterates over it using `forEach()`, which is a relatively expensive operation. On the other hand, the empty function doesn't do anything, making it a simple and lightweight option.
	+ Pros of Loop: It's easy to understand and visualize the performance impact of creating and iterating over an array.
	+ Cons of Loop: It's not necessary to create an entire array for this benchmark, as we're only measuring the iteration time.
* **Using a loop vs using an empty function**: Both approaches can be used to measure the execution time of the iteration. However, if we want to focus on the overhead of creating and iterating over an array, the `loop()` function might be more suitable.

Other considerations:

* The benchmark uses Android 9 as the device platform, which is relatively recent.
* The benchmark measures executions per second, which is a good metric for evaluating performance in this context.
* The test cases are simple and easy to understand, making it accessible to a wide range of software engineers.

As for libraries used, there doesn't appear to be any library mentioned in the provided JSON data. However, the `Array.from()` method is a built-in JavaScript method that creates an array from an iterable source.

There's no special JS feature or syntax being tested here, as it's focusing solely on the execution performance of simple functions.

If you're interested in exploring similar benchmarks or alternatives, here are some options:

* `jsbench.net`: A popular benchmarking platform for JavaScript code.
* `benchmark.js`: A lightweight benchmarking library for Node.js and web browsers.
* `MicroBenchmark`: A small, fast benchmarking tool for measuring performance differences between different implementations of a function.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have slightly different focus areas or features compared to MeasureThat.net.

Related benchmarks:

empty function vs loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: loop vs empty

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

loop

empty

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):