Benchmark: feachand - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0];

Tests:

slicearray
let g = data.slice(3, 8)
foreachddd
var g = []; var j = 0; for (var i = 3; i < 8; i++) { g[j++] = data[i] }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
slicearray
foreachddd

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark definition and the test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark is called "feachand" (which might be an acronym or a typo), and it's described as a JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Script Preparation Code:**
This code initializes an array `data` with values from 0 to 9. This array will be used in the test cases.

**Individual Test Cases:**

1. **Benchmark Definition:** `let g = data.slice(3, 8)`, **Test Name:** "slicearray"
2. **Benchmark Definition:** `var g = [];\r\nvar j = 0;\r\nfor (var i = 3; i < 8; i++) {\r\n  g[j++] = data[i]\r\n}`, **Test Name:** "foreachddd"

**Explanation:**

1. **slicearray:** This test case uses the `slice()` method to create a new array `g` by copying elements from the original `data` array, starting from index 3 (inclusive) and ending at index 8 (exclusive). The resulting array `g` will contain values 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
2. **foreachddd:** This test case uses a traditional for loop to iterate over the original `data` array and copy elements from index 3 to 7 into a new array `g`. Note that this implementation is using an older syntax with `var` keyword.

**Library:**
None mentioned in the provided JSON data. However, it's worth noting that both test cases use native JavaScript methods and loops, which means no external libraries are used.

**JS Feature or Syntax:**
The `slice()` method is a built-in JavaScript method for creating a shallow copy of an array (or string) from a specific start index to an end index. This feature is supported in most modern browsers and environments.

**Alternatives:**

For the **foreachddd** test case, alternative implementations could be:

* Using a `forEach` loop with Array.prototype.forEach method.
* Using `map()` or `filter()` methods (not applicable in this specific scenario).
* Using a more modern syntax with arrow functions, e.g., `(g = data.slice(3, 8))`.

**Pros/Cons:**

The **slicearray** approach using the `slice()` method has several advantages:

* It's concise and easy to read.
* It leverages a built-in JavaScript method, making it more efficient and cross-browser compatible.

On the other hand, the **foreachddd** implementation with traditional loops may be beneficial in specific scenarios where:

* The code needs to be executed in environments without modern browser support (e.g., older browsers or non-JS environments).
* There's a need for explicit loop control, error handling, or custom logic that's not easily achievable with `slice()`.

However, this approach may be less efficient and harder to maintain compared to the **slicearray** solution.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/89.0.4389.128 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 89 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
slicearray	7405771.0 Ops/sec
foreachddd	1587050.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

feachand (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: slicearray vs foreachddd

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

slicearray

foreachddd

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 27 days ago):