Benchmark: Scoping test without log

Tests:

1

var test = function test() {
    var x = 0;
    var nested= function() {
        for (var i=0; i< 1000000; i++) {
            x = x + Math.random();
        }
    }
    nested();
};
test();

AخA
 
var test = function test() {    var x = 0;    var nested= function() {        for (var i=0; i< 1000000; i++) {            x = x + Math.random();        }    }    nested();};test();

2

(function () {
    var x = 0;
    var nested= function() {
        for (var i=0; i< 1000000; i++) {
            x = x + Math.random();
        }
    }
    nested();
})();

 
(function () {    var x = 0;    var nested= function() {        for (var i=0; i< 1000000; i++) {            x = x + Math.random();        }    }    nested();})();

3

(function test() {
    var x = 0;
    var nested= function() {
        for (var i=0; i< 1000000; i++) {
            x = x + Math.random();
        }
    }
    nested();
})();

 
(function test() {    var x = 0;    var nested= function() {        for (var i=0; i< 1000000; i++) {            x = x + Math.random();        }    }    nested();})();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
1
2
3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Mobile; LYF/F120B/LYF-F120B-001-02-34-170919-i;Android; rv:48.0) Gecko/48.0 Firefox/48.0 KAIOS/2.5

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 48 on Firefox OS

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	4.4 Ops/sec
2	4.7 Ops/sec
3	3.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

I'll break down the provided benchmark and its options for you.

What is tested?

The benchmark tests the performance of JavaScript's scoping behavior in different environments. Scoping refers to how JavaScript resolves variable references within a function or block scope. The test cases aim to evaluate which approach produces the most efficient execution.

Options compared:

There are three test cases:

Test Case 1: var test = function test() { ... }
Test Case 2: (function () { ... })() (Immediately Invoked Function Expression, IIFE)
Test Case 3: (function test() { ... })() (similar to Test Case 2 but with a named function expression)

Pros and Cons:

Test Case 1 (var declaration):
- Pros: Simple and widely supported.
- Cons: May lead to variable hoisting issues due to the var keyword.
Test Case 2 (IIFE):
- Pros: Creates a new, isolated scope that avoids variable hoisting issues.
- Cons: More complex syntax and may not be as widely supported.
Test Case 3 (named function expression):
- Pros: Similar to Test Case 1 but with a named function, which might be more readable and maintainable.
- Cons: May still lead to variable hoisting issues due to the var keyword.

Library usage

There is no explicit library used in these test cases. However, the benchmark results display information about the User Agent String, which provides details about the browser, device platform, operating system, and version running the test.

Special JavaScript feature or syntax

None of the provided test cases use special JavaScript features like async/await, Promise, or any advanced constructs.

Other alternatives

Alternative approaches to scoping in JavaScript include:

let and const: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), these keywords define block scope, which can help avoid variable hoisting issues.
Arrow functions: While not changing the scoping behavior, arrow functions can simplify code and eliminate the need for explicit function declarations or IIFEs.
Function expressions with this binding: Using a function expression with this can affect how variables are scoped within that function.

These alternatives might be worth considering when writing JavaScript code, especially in modern environments that support them.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its options!

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and its options for you.

**What is tested?**

**Options compared:**

There are three test cases:

1. **Test Case 1**: `var test = function test() { ... }`
2. **Test Case 2**: `(function () { ... })()` (Immediately Invoked Function Expression, IIFE)
3. **Test Case 3**: `(function test() { ... })()` (similar to Test Case 2 but with a named function expression)

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Test Case 1 (`var` declaration)**:
	+ Pros: Simple and widely supported.
	+ Cons: May lead to variable hoisting issues due to the `var` keyword.
* **Test Case 2 (IIFE)**:
	+ Pros: Creates a new, isolated scope that avoids variable hoisting issues.
	+ Cons: More complex syntax and may not be as widely supported.
* **Test Case 3 (named function expression)**:
	+ Pros: Similar to Test Case 1 but with a named function, which might be more readable and maintainable.
	+ Cons: May still lead to variable hoisting issues due to the `var` keyword.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library used in these test cases. However, the benchmark results display information about the **User Agent String**, which provides details about the browser, device platform, operating system, and version running the test.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

None of the provided test cases use special JavaScript features like async/await, Promise, or any advanced constructs.

**Other alternatives**

Alternative approaches to scoping in JavaScript include:

1. **let** and **const**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), these keywords define block scope, which can help avoid variable hoisting issues.
2. **Arrow functions**: While not changing the scoping behavior, arrow functions can simplify code and eliminate the need for explicit function declarations or IIFEs.
3. **Function expressions with `this` binding**: Using a function expression with `this` can affect how variables are scoped within that function.

These alternatives might be worth considering when writing JavaScript code, especially in modern environments that support them.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its options!

Related benchmarks:

Scoping test without log (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):