Benchmark: Date.now() - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

let timestamp = 0;

Tests:

Date.now()
timestamp = Date.now()
timestamp++
timestamp++

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Date.now()
timestamp++

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases, explaining what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents an individual JavaScript expression or statement that is being measured for its execution time. In this case, there are two benchmarks:

1. `let timestamp = 0;`
2. `timestamp++`

These expressions are simple assignments, which typically involve a few basic operations: loading the variable into memory, storing a value, and incrementing (if applicable).

**Comparison of Options**

The benchmark is comparing the execution time of these two simple assignment statements:

1. **`let timestamp = 0;`**: This statement involves loading a variable into memory, initializing it to 0, and possibly performing some additional operations before returning control.
2. **`timestamp++`**: This statement involves incrementing an existing variable (assuming `timestamp` is already declared).

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **`let timestamp = 0;`**:
	* Pros: May involve more operations than just a simple increment, which can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the browser's capabilities.
	* Cons: Introduces additional memory allocation, initialization, and potential side effects, making it less relevant for measuring pure "no-op" or assignment-time benchmarks.
2. **`timestamp++`**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward operation that focuses on just incrementing an existing variable, providing a clean benchmark for measuring the cost of incrementation.
	* Cons: Might not reveal any additional insights about the browser's capabilities beyond simple incrementation.

In general, using more complex expressions or statements can help identify potential bottlenecks or areas where the browser might be optimizing, but it also increases the complexity and noise in the results. In this case, both benchmarks are relatively simple and focused on a specific operation (assignment or increment), making them suitable for measuring execution time.

**Library Usage**

In the provided test cases, there is no explicit library usage mentioned. The expressions themselves do not depend on any external libraries.

However, it's essential to note that in real-world scenarios, many benchmarks rely on third-party libraries or frameworks to isolate specific aspects of performance or behavior. For example, a benchmark might use a library like `performance.now()` (a W3C standard) to measure the time elapsed since the start of an operation.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in these benchmarks that would require additional explanation. The focus is solely on the execution time of simple assignment statements.

Overall, this benchmark appears to be designed to measure the performance of incrementing a variable versus performing a simple assignment statement, providing insights into the browser's optimization strategies and potential bottlenecks.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring JavaScript benchmarks include:

1. **`performance.now()`**: A W3C standard for measuring time elapsed since the start of an operation.
2. **`Date.now()`**: A method to get the number of milliseconds elapsed since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC (Coordinated Universal Time).
3. **`requestAnimationFrame()`**: A request to schedule a function or a block of code to be executed before the next repaint of the screen.
4. **WebAssembly**: A binary format for representing small, efficient programs that can run in web browsers and other environments.

These alternatives might be used depending on the specific requirements and goals of the benchmarking effort.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.1.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 14 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Date.now()	2085066.8 Ops/sec
timestamp++	3272863.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Date.now() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Date.now() vs timestamp++

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Date.now()

timestamp++

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):