Benchmark: While vs For loop vs For loop no plusplus

Tests:

For loop
var acts = "BRA|BRA|FLR|VSL|BRA".split("|"); for (var i = 0; i < acts.length -1; i++) { if (acts[i] == "BRA") acts.splice(i, 1); }
While loop
var acts = "BRA|BRA|FLR|VSL|BRA".split("|"); var i = acts.length; while (i--) { if (acts[i] == "BRA") acts.splice(i, 1); }
No plusplus
var acts = "BRA|BRA|FLR|VSL|BRA".split("|"); for (var i = 0; i < acts.length -1; i+=1) { if (acts[i] == "BRA") acts.splice(i, 1); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
For loop
While loop
No plusplus

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark compares three approaches to remove consecutive occurrences of "BRA" from a string:

1.  **For Loop**: This approach uses a traditional for loop with an incrementing variable `i` that iterates over the indices of the string.
2.  **While Loop**: This approach utilizes a while loop with a decrementing variable `i` that counts down from the length of the string.
3.  **No Plus-Plus (for)**: This variant of the for loop omits the increment operator (`++`) and instead uses a fixed value of `1` to increment the loop counter.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

*   **For Loop**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Easy to understand and implement.
        *   Can be optimized with early termination conditions.
    *   Cons:
        *   May have slower performance due to the overhead of the increment operator.

*   **While Loop**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Often faster than for loops, as it can take advantage of optimizations like loop unrolling and caching.
    *   Cons:
        *   Can be more challenging to implement correctly.
        *   May require additional effort to handle edge cases.

*   **No Plus-Plus (for)**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Offers a balance between readability and performance, as it avoids the increment operator while still being relatively straightforward to understand.
    *   Cons:
        *   Requires attention to detail when implementing correctly, as incorrect usage can lead to unexpected behavior.

The library used in this benchmark is none, but the `split()` function, which splits a string into an array of substrings based on a specified delimiter, is utilized by all test cases.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmarks. However, if you're curious about other optimization techniques that might be applicable to these loops, consider exploring concepts like:

*   Loop fusion
*   Loop unrolling
*   Dead code elimination

Keep in mind that the most effective optimizations depend on the specific use case and the characteristics of the target platform.

As for alternatives, MeasureThat.net provides a wide range of benchmarks covering various aspects of JavaScript performance. Some examples include:

*   **Array manipulation**: Benchmarks like "Array reversal" or "Array sorting" can help evaluate the efficiency of different algorithms for manipulating arrays.
*   **DOM manipulation**: Benchmarks such as "DOM creation and traversal" or "Event handling" can assess the performance of various DOM-related tasks.
*   **Networking and I/O**: Benchmarks like "HTTP request processing" or "File system operations" can help compare the performance of different approaches to networking and I/O operations.

These alternatives offer a wealth of opportunities for exploring optimization techniques, testing new libraries, and measuring the performance of your code against various platforms.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:96.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/96.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 96 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
For loop	6522313.5 Ops/sec
While loop	4168428.5 Ops/sec
No plusplus	6490652.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

While vs For loop vs For loop no plusplus (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: For loop vs While loop vs No plusplus

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

For loop

While loop

No plusplus

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):