Benchmark: wefwe efewre - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var c = 32.2, rounded;

Tests:

1
rounded = (t => .5 + t | 0)(c);
2
rounded = .5 + c | 0
3
rounded = Math.round(c)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains information about the benchmark itself. The relevant fields are:

* `Name`: This is the name of the benchmark, which appears to be randomly generated.
* `Description`: There is no description provided for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These two fields contain JavaScript code that is executed before running the actual benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The test cases are defined in an array of objects, each containing:

* `Benchmark Definition`: This field contains a JavaScript expression that defines how to calculate the `rounded` variable.
* `Test Name`: Each test case has a unique name, which appears to be the index of the test case (e.g., "1", "2", etc.).

The three test cases are:

1. `rounded = (t => .5 + t | 0)(c);`
2. `rounded = .5 + c | 0`
3. `rounded = Math.round(c)`

**Libraries and Special JS Features**

None of the test cases use any external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond what is considered standard.

**Options Being Compared**

The three test cases compare different approaches to rounding a floating-point number, `c`, to the nearest integer:

1. **Using template literals with the `|` operator**: This approach uses the bitwise OR operator (`|`) to perform rounding.
2. **Using the `Math.round()` function**: This is a built-in JavaScript function that rounds a number to the nearest integer.
3. **Using a custom function**: The first test case defines a custom function, `(t => .5 + t | 0)`, which performs rounding.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

1. **Template literals with `|` operator**:
	* Pros: Compact and efficient code.
	* Cons: May be less readable for complex cases, and the bitwise OR operator can produce unexpected results if not used carefully.
2. **Math.round() function**:
	* Pros: Well-documented and widely supported; provides a clear understanding of how rounding is performed.
	* Cons: Can be slower than custom implementations, as it involves a function call and some internal calculations.
3. **Custom function**:
	* Pros: Provides fine-grained control over the rounding process; can be optimized for performance.
	* Cons: Requires more code and may be less readable; may not be as widely supported or well-documented.

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating these approaches, consider factors such as:

* Code readability and maintainability
* Performance impact (especially for large datasets)
* Compatibility across different browsers and platforms
* Special cases or edge scenarios that may require custom handling

**Alternatives**

If you were to create a new benchmark, you might consider including additional test cases or variations, such as:

* Using other rounding modes (e.g., `Math.ceil()`, `Math.floor()`)
* Incorporating special cases for negative numbers, zero, or NaN values
* Comparing performance of custom implementations versus built-in functions like `Math.round()`

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 12; M2007J3SG Build/SKQ1.211006.001; wv) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Chrome/113.0.5672.162 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 113 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	5758860.5 Ops/sec
2	5804205.5 Ops/sec
3	3110848.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

wefwe efewre (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3

Created: one year 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 27 days ago):