Benchmark: For loop VS Reverse for loop

Script Preparation code:

num = 1000000;
dummy = 0;

Tests:

For loop
for(let i = 0; i < num; i++) { ++dummy; }
Reverse for loop
for(let i = num; --i >= 0;) { ++dummy; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For loop
Reverse for loop

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches for incrementing a variable `dummy` within a loop:

1. **For loop**: A traditional `for` loop with an explicit counter variable `i`, starting from 0, and iterating up to a specified value.
2. **Reverse for loop**: An older, less common `for` loop syntax where the counter decreases from a specified value down to 0.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two loops on different JavaScript engines (in this case, Firefox). The tests are likely designed to measure which approach is faster in terms of executing the loop and incrementing the variable `dummy`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **For loop**: This is a widely used and well-supported syntax. Pros include ease of use, readability, and compatibility across most JavaScript engines. Cons might include slower execution due to the overhead of checking the counter value.
2. **Reverse for loop**: This older syntax can be considered less readable and more prone to errors than the traditional `for` loop. However, it might offer a slight performance advantage in certain cases due to reduced overhead.

**Library and its purpose**

The benchmark doesn't seem to use any specific library, as all code is contained within the script itself. However, the use of JavaScript engines like Firefox suggests that the benchmark relies on built-in JavaScript functionality rather than external libraries.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There's no explicit mention of special JavaScript features or syntax in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different loop approaches.

**Other alternatives**

In theory, alternative loop constructs could be tested, such as:

* `while` loops with conditional statements
* `do-while` loops
* Array methods (e.g., `forEach`, `map`) for iterating over arrays

However, the benchmark focuses specifically on comparing traditional `for` loops with and without a decrementing counter.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The script preparation code initializes two variables: `num` to a large value (`1000000`) and `dummy` to 0. This setup is likely used as a starting point for measuring the execution time of each loop approach.

Keep in mind that this explanation assumes you're familiar with basic JavaScript concepts, such as loops, conditionals, and variable declarations. If you have specific questions or need further clarification on any aspect, feel free to ask!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 28 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For loop	83.0 Ops/sec
Reverse for loop	101.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

For loop VS Reverse for loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For loop vs Reverse for loop

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

For loop

Reverse for loop

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):