Benchmark: adsasd - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var array = [1,2,3,3,4,324,32,4,324,32,432,4,324,32,4,324,32,432,4,32,432,4,324,32,4,324,32,4,324,32,4,324,32,4,324];

Tests:

at
var z = array.at(7);
npr,mal
var b = array[7];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
at
npr,mal

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'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by two JSON objects: `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`. The `Script Preparation Code` specifies a JavaScript array with 20 elements. This array will be used as input for the benchmarks.

In this case, the script preparation code only includes JavaScript syntax, so there are no special JS features or syntax mentioned.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"at"`:
	* Benchmark Definition: `var z = array.at(7);`
	* Purpose: This benchmark tests the performance of the `Array.prototype.at()` method.
2. **"npr,mal"`:
	* Benchmark Definition: `var b = array[7];`
	* Purpose: This benchmark tests the performance of the syntax `array[7]` (also known as "numeric property reference").

**Comparison**

The two test cases are compared to determine which approach is faster.

Pros and Cons:

* **Using `at()`**: Advantages:
	+ Readability: It explicitly specifies the index, making it easier for developers to understand.
	+ Performance: Some JavaScript engines might have optimized `at()` for this specific case, making it a potentially faster option.
	+ Error handling: If an invalid index is provided, `at()` will throw a TypeError, whereas `[7]` will simply return `undefined`.
	Disadvantages:
		- It requires the array to be indexed (0-based), which might not always be clear for developers.
* **Using `[7]`**: Advantages:
	+ Simplicity: It's a straightforward syntax that most developers are familiar with.
	+ Performance: Some browsers and JavaScript engines might have optimized this specific syntax, making it faster.
	Disadvantages:
		- It can throw a TypeError if the index is invalid (non-numeric or out of bounds).
		- The performance difference between `at()` and `[7]` might be negligible in modern JavaScript engines.

**Other Considerations**

* **Performance**: The benchmark measures the number of executions per second, which gives an idea of the performance difference between the two approaches. However, it's essential to consider other factors like code readability, maintainability, and error handling when choosing between `at()` and `[7]`.
* **Browser Support**: Both `Array.prototype.at()` and numeric property references are widely supported in modern browsers. However, older browsers might have different or incomplete support for these features.
* **Library Usage**: There's no library mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Alternatives**

If you need to compare other JavaScript methods or syntaxes, consider using MeasureThat.net or similar platforms that allow you to define custom benchmarks and test cases. Some alternatives include:

* JavaScript performance testing frameworks like Jest, Mocha, or AVA.
* Online code editors and IDEs with built-in performance analysis tools.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/124.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/124.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 124 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
at	25621452.0 Ops/sec
npr,mal	14397465.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

adsasd (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: at vs npr,mal

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

at

npr,mal

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):