Benchmark: reduce vs for custom

Script Preparation code:

var strings = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    strings[i] = {
        name: i
    };
}

Tests:

reduce
strings.reduce((a,n) => a+n.name, '');
for
let result = '' for (var i = 0; i < strings.length; i++) { result += strings[i].name }
for of
let result = '' for (const string of strings) { result += string.name }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce
for
for of

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 16_3 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) CriOS/111.0.5563.72 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile iOS 111 on iOS 16.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
reduce	21359.7 Ops/sec
for	8567.7 Ops/sec
for of	24950.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case that compares the performance of three different approaches to concatenate an array of strings: `reduce()`, traditional `for` loop, and `for...of` loop.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is identical for all three test cases. It creates an array of 1000 objects with a single property `name`, which will be used as the input data for the benchmarking test.

```javascript
var strings = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
    strings[i] = {
        name: i
    };
}
```

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code is empty, indicating that no additional setup or configuration is required for the benchmark.

```javascript
// Html Preparation Code: null
```

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of three test cases:

1. `reduce()`: This test case uses the `Array.prototype.reduce()` method to concatenate the array of strings.
2. Traditional `for` loop: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the array and concatenate the strings manually.
3. `for...of` loop: This test case uses the new `for...of` loop syntax to iterate over the array and concatenate the strings.

**Options Compared**

The three test cases are comparing the performance of different approaches to concatenate an array of strings:

* `reduce()`: A built-in method that iterates over the array and accumulates a result.
* Traditional `for` loop: An iterative approach that uses indexing to access elements in the array.
* `for...of` loop: A new syntax for iterating over arrays, which provides a more concise way to iterate over elements.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* `reduce()`:
	+ Pros: Concise, efficient, and flexible.
	+ Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments that don't understand the `reduce()` method.
* Traditional `for` loop:
	+ Pros: Widely supported across all browsers and environments.
	+ Cons: More verbose and error-prone than the other two approaches.
* `for...of` loop:
	+ Pros: Concise, efficient, and widely supported (since it was introduced in ECMAScript 2015).
	+ Cons: May not be as flexible as `reduce()` or traditional `for` loops.

**Library**

None of these test cases use a library. The `Array.prototype.reduce()` method is a built-in function provided by the JavaScript language, and the `for...of` loop syntax is also a standard feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in these test cases. They only use standard JavaScript features such as arrays, loops, and concatenation operators (`+`).

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare the performance of different string concatenation methods, you could also consider using other approaches such as:

* Using a `String.prototype.concat()` method with an accumulator function.
* Using the `Array.prototype.join()` method.
* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js that provides utility functions for string manipulation.

However, these alternatives would likely be less efficient and more verbose than the three test cases presented in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

reduce vs for custom (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: reduce vs for vs for of

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce

for

for of

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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