Benchmark: checker - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var aa = 1000000, tester = [];
while(aa) tester.push(aa--);

Tests:

explicit
for(var i=0;i<tester.length;i++) if(tester[i]===null)break;
implicit
for(var i=0;i<tester.length;i++) if(!tester[i])break;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
explicit
implicit

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark definition is provided in JSON format, which includes:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "checker".
* `Description`: A null value, indicating that there is no detailed description of the benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code`: This is a snippet of JavaScript code that sets up the environment for the benchmark. It declares two variables: `aa` and `tester`. The variable `aa` is initialized with a large value (1 million), and an array `tester` is created using a while loop, where each iteration decrements `aa` and pushes its current value to the `tester` array. This creates a large array of numbers that will be used in the benchmark.
* `Html Preparation Code`: This field is empty, indicating that no HTML code is required for the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases:**
The benchmark includes two test cases:

1. **Explicit**: The first test case uses an explicit loop to iterate through the elements of the `tester` array and checks if each element is equal to null using the `===` operator.
2. **Implicit**: The second test case uses a similar approach, but instead of checking for exact equality (`===`), it uses the `!` operator to negate the value of each element in the array.

**Comparison:**
The two test cases are comparing the performance difference between using explicit checks (`===`) and implicit negation (`!`) when searching for null values in an array.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Explicit Checks (===)**:
	+ Pros: More readable and maintainable code, as the intent is clear.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the additional comparison operation.
* **Implicit Negation (!)**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster, as it avoids the explicit comparison operation.
	+ Cons: May lead to less readable or maintainable code, as the intent is not immediately clear.

**Library and Features:**
There are no libraries mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, the `tester` array creation uses a common JavaScript feature: using a while loop to create an array of values. This is a basic programming construct that is widely supported across different browsers and environments.

**Special JS Features or Syntax:**
The benchmarks use the following special JavaScript features:

* The `===` operator for explicit equality checks.
* The `!` operator for implicit negation.
* The `while` loop syntax for creating an array of values.

These features are basic to JavaScript programming and are widely supported across different browsers and environments.

**Alternatives:**
Other alternatives to microbenchmarks like MeasureThat.net include:

* Other online benchmarking platforms, such as jsperf.com or benchmarkjs.com.
* Local benchmarking tools, such as Node.js's built-in `benchmark` module.
* Manual testing using a stopwatch or timer.

These alternatives can provide similar functionality and insights into the performance of JavaScript code, but may not offer the same level of sophistication or ease of use as online platforms like MeasureThat.net.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.110 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 70 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
explicit	5.6 Ops/sec
implicit	5.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

checker (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: explicit vs implicit

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

explicit

implicit

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):