Comments on: Try… Catch Benchmark http://scriptnode.com/article/try-catch-benchmark/ Tips and tricks for web developers. Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:29:51 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Dr. Pimp http://scriptnode.com/article/try-catch-benchmark/comment-page-1/#comment-297 Dr. Pimp Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:21:48 +0000 http://scriptnode.com/?p=25#comment-297 Safari 4, kills it all: Results: Solo: 0 milliseconds With try...catch statement: 4 milliseconds With try...catch statement and an error: 50 milliseconds Executed with a white MacBook 2.0 GHz (4MB L2 Cache), 2GB RAM Safari 4, kills it all:

Results:
Solo: 0 milliseconds
With try…catch statement: 4 milliseconds
With try…catch statement and an error: 50 milliseconds

Executed with a white MacBook 2.0 GHz (4MB L2 Cache), 2GB RAM

]]> By: YuriK http://scriptnode.com/article/try-catch-benchmark/comment-page-1/#comment-291 YuriK Thu, 14 May 2009 17:21:18 +0000 http://scriptnode.com/?p=25#comment-291 i think you should add IE8, Safari 4, Opera 9.6 to this list. its a very good benchmark demo. i think you should add IE8, Safari 4, Opera 9.6 to this list.
its a very good benchmark demo.

]]> By: Matt Hackett http://scriptnode.com/article/try-catch-benchmark/comment-page-1/#comment-46 Matt Hackett Fri, 11 Jul 2008 19:40:42 +0000 http://scriptnode.com/?p=25#comment-46 Hi Robert, To be honest I wrote this article before FF3 was out and only just recently published it. Thanks for reminding me! I will post an update (it needs to be on the same machine as the initial testing so the speeds remain relative). Also World of Solitaire is great! All the YUI guys here love it. Hi Robert,

To be honest I wrote this article before FF3 was out and only just recently published it. Thanks for reminding me! I will post an update (it needs to be on the same machine as the initial testing so the speeds remain relative).

Also World of Solitaire is great! All the YUI guys here love it.

]]> By: Robert http://scriptnode.com/article/try-catch-benchmark/comment-page-1/#comment-45 Robert Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:54:59 +0000 http://scriptnode.com/?p=25#comment-45 That is very insightful information. I myself never use try catch except where I have no control over possible exception and I expect them, this is very rare. I'm not a fan of try/catch :) I wonder why you didn't include Firefox 3? I ran it myself with FF3 three times and got: Solo: 7ms try...catch: 6ms try.catch and an error: 19.882 seconds Solo: 6ms try...catch: 6ms try.catch and an error: 19.806 seconds Solo: 6ms try...catch: 7ms try.catch and an error: 19.782 seconds Aside from the HORRIBLE performance catching an actual error, Firefox 3 beats all the rest. That is very insightful information. I myself never use try catch except where I have no control over possible exception and I expect them, this is very rare.
I’m not a fan of try/catch :)

I wonder why you didn’t include Firefox 3?
I ran it myself with FF3 three times and got:

Solo: 7ms
try…catch: 6ms
try.catch and an error: 19.882 seconds

Solo: 6ms
try…catch: 6ms
try.catch and an error: 19.806 seconds

Solo: 6ms
try…catch: 7ms
try.catch and an error: 19.782 seconds

Aside from the HORRIBLE performance catching an actual error, Firefox 3 beats all the rest.

]]>