Benchmark: Fastest to break

Script Preparation code:

var a = new Array(1000);
for (let i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
  a[i] = {checked: false};
}
a.push({checked: true});

Tests:

some
a.some((i) => { return i.checked; });
find
a.find((i) => { return i.checked; });
for
for (let i = 0; i < a.length; i++) { if (a[i].checked) break; }
for reverse
let i = 0; for (; i < a.length;) { if (a[i].checked) break; i = i + 1; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
some
find
for
for reverse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined in JSON format, which contains several parameters:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "Fastest to break".
* `Description`: An empty description, indicating that no specific test case or purpose is mentioned.
* `Script Preparation Code`: A JavaScript code snippet that initializes an array `a` with 1000 elements, sets their initial values to `{ checked: false }`, and then adds one element with `checked: true`.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An empty string, indicating that no HTML preparation code is required.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of four individual test cases:

1. `some`
	* The `Benchmark Definition` is a call to the `some()` method on the array `a`, which returns the first element that satisfies the condition `(i) => { return i.checked; }`.
2. `find`
	* The `Benchmark Definition` is a call to the `find()` method on the array `a`, which returns the first element that satisfies the condition `(i) => { return i.checked; }`.
3. `for`
	* The `Benchmark Definition` is a traditional `for` loop that iterates over the array `a` and breaks when it encounters an element with `checked: true`.
4. `for reverse`
	* The `Benchmark Definition` is a `for` loop that iterates over the array `a` in reverse order, breaking when it encounters an element with `checked: true`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution performance of these four different approaches:

1. Using `some()` vs `find()`: Both methods search for the first matching element, but `find()` returns the actual element instead of a boolean value.
2. Traditional `for` loop vs Loop with increment (`i = i + 1`): The traditional `for` loop is more efficient because it avoids the overhead of incrementing the index variable.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Traditional `for` loop**:
	+ Pros: More predictable, less memory allocation, fewer iterations.
	+ Cons: Less readable, requires manual indexing.
* **Loop with increment (`i = i + 1`)**:
	+ Pros: More flexible, easier to read.
	+ Cons: Less efficient due to the overhead of incrementing the index variable.
* `some()` and `find()`: Both methods search for the first matching element. `some()` returns a boolean value (true or false), while `find()` returns the actual element.

**Library**

None of the test cases use any external libraries, except that they rely on built-in JavaScript functions like `Array.prototype.some()`, `Array.prototype.find()`, and traditional `for` loops.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses a few features:

* Arrow functions (`(i) => { ... }`)
* Template literals (`a[i] = { checked: false };`)
* The spread operator (`a.push({ checked: true });`)

These features are part of modern JavaScript and were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other Alternatives**

If the benchmark were to be rewritten, alternative approaches could include:

* Using `Array.prototype.indexOf()` instead of `some()` or `find()`.
* Using a regular expression with `String.prototype.some()` or `String.prototype.find()`.
* Implementing a custom iterator using `Array.prototype[Symbol.iterator]`.

However, these alternatives would likely have similar performance characteristics to the original test cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/56.0.2924.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 56 on Mac OS X 10.12.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
some	65698.7 Ops/sec
find	79646.0 Ops/sec
for	5824.9 Ops/sec
for reverse	6153.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Fastest to break (version: 3)

Comparing performance of: some vs find vs for vs for reverse

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

some

find

for

for reverse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):