Benchmark: higher order function vs simple function perf checkasdasda sdf

Script Preparation code:

var artifacts = {
    getById: () => []
}

function flatten(artifacts, artifactId) {
    const getDependencies1 = (artifactId) => artifacts.getById(artifactId);
    return [
        ...getDependencies1(artifactId)
    ]
}

function createFlattenr(artifacts){
    const getDependencies2 = (artifactId) => artifacts.getById(artifactId);
    return (artifactId) => {
        return [
            ...getDependencies2(artifactId)
        ]
    }
}

Tests:

simple function
for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { flatten(artifacts, i) }
higher order function
const f = createFlattenr(artifacts) for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { f(i) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
simple function
higher order function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:84.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/84.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 84 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
simple function	121624.4 Ops/sec
higher order function	239299.1 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. **Simple Function**: This approach uses a straightforward, inline function `flatten` that takes an `artifactId` as input and returns an array of dependencies.
2. **Higher Order Function (HOF)**: This approach defines a higher-order function `createFlattenr` that takes an `artifacts` object as input. The HOF returns another function `f` that takes an `artifactId` as input and returns the same array of dependencies.

**Script Preparation Code:**

The script preparation code defines the `artifacts` object, which is used by both approaches to retrieve dependencies by ID. The `flatten` function is defined using the Simple Function approach, while the `createFlattenr` function is defined using the HOF approach.

The key difference between these two functions lies in how they access the `artifacts` object:

* The `flatten` function uses a simple property access `getDependencies1(artifactId)` to retrieve dependencies.
* The `createFlattenr` function returns another function `f` that also accesses the `artifacts` object using `getDependencies2(artifactId)`, but with a closure.

**Html Preparation Code:**

The HTML preparation code is empty, which means no additional setup or resources are required for these benchmarks.

**Individual Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. **Simple Function**: This test case runs the Simple Function `flatten` function 100 times in a loop, passing different `artifactId` values to it.
2. **Higher Order Function (HOF)**: This test case defines the HOF `createFlattenr` function and then uses it to create another function `f`. It then runs `f` 100 times in a loop, also passing different `artifactId` values.

**Library:**

The only library used in these benchmarks is JavaScript itself. No external libraries are mentioned in the provided code.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

There are no special JS features or syntaxes used in these benchmarks. The code follows standard JavaScript conventions and best practices.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches:**

Both approaches have their pros and cons:

* **Simple Function (inline function)**:
	+ Pros: Simple, easy to understand, and optimized for performance.
	+ Cons: May lead to code duplication if used in multiple places.
* **Higher Order Function (HOF)**:
	+ Pros: More flexible, reusable, and easier to maintain.
	+ Cons: Can introduce additional overhead due to function creation and closure.

**Other Alternatives:**

Some alternative approaches could be explored:

1. **Using a library like Lodash**: Instead of defining a custom `flatten` function, you could use a popular JavaScript library like Lodash, which provides a `flattenDeep` function.
2. **Using a different approach for dependency retrieval**: Instead of using property access or closure, you could explore other methods, such as using a separate data structure to store dependencies or leveraging the `Map` API.

However, these alternatives would likely introduce additional complexity and may not be relevant to this specific benchmarking scenario.

**Benchmark Considerations:**

When interpreting the benchmark results:

* The **ExecutionsPerSecond** metric is used to measure the performance of each test case.
* A higher value indicates better performance.
* The comparison between the two approaches will reveal which one is faster, but it's essential to consider other factors, such as code maintainability and readability.

By analyzing these factors, you can gain a deeper understanding of the trade-offs involved in choosing an approach for your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

higher order function vs simple function perf checkasdasda sdf (version: 0)

higher order function vs simple function perf check

Comparing performance of: simple function vs higher order function

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

simple function

higher order function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):