XPAGES – Is SSJS performance loss when using @functions?

viewScope.put("length", tmpStr.length)

viewScope.put("length:, @Length(tmpStr))

 
 
  var start = java. lang.System.currentTimeMillis();
 var testString = "0123456789";
 var dummy;
 for( var i=0; i<100000; i++ ){
 dummy = @Length( testString )
 }
 var stop = java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis();
 stop-start + "ms"}]]>
 
 
 
 
 
 
  var start = java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis();
 var testString = "0123456789"; 
 var dummy;
 for( var i=0; i<100000; i++ ){
 dummy = testString.length;
 }
 var stop = java.lang .System.currentTimeMillis();
 stop-start + "ms"}]]>
 
 

If I want to parse text fields in SSJS, there are two main tools. Built-in JavaScript code and newly converted @Functions. @Functions is better than Is it slow to use pure javascript? Or is there no real difference?

viewScope.put("length", tmpStr.length)

and

viewScope.put("length:, @Length(tmpStr))

For me, it seems that @Formula is not as fast as using SSJS code.

You can easily test with code like this (reload the page multiple times to get serious results):

 
 
  var start = java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis();
 var testString = "0123456789";
 var dummy;
 for( var i=0; i<100000; i++ ){
 dummy = @Length( testString )
 }
 var stop = java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis();
 stop-start + "ms"}]]>
 
 
 
 
 
 
  var start = java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis();
 var testString = "0123456789";
 var dummy;
 for( var i=0; i< 100000; i++ ){
 dummy = testString.length;
 }
 var stop = java.lang.System.currentTimeMillis();
 stop-start + "ms"}] ]>