Benchmark: zdzadza - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

arrowFn = () => { return 4 }
function fnc() { return 4 }

Tests:

arrowFn
arrowFn()
function
fnc()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
arrowFn
function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definitions and explain what's being tested, compared, and considered.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The `Script Preparation Code` section contains the code that is prepared by the user for each benchmark test case. In this case, there are two test cases:

1. `arrowFn = () => { return 4 }`: This defines an arrow function named `arrowFn`. Arrow functions are a concise way to define small, single-expression functions in JavaScript.
2. `function fnc() { return 4 }`: This is a traditional function definition using the `function` keyword.

**Comparison of Options**

The two test cases compare the execution performance of arrow functions versus traditional function definitions.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Arrow Functions**:
	* Pros:
		+ Concise and expressive syntax
		+ Less boilerplate code compared to traditional function definitions
		+ Often faster execution due to fewer overhead operations (e.g., creating a new scope)
	* Cons:
		+ May be less readable for complex functions or those requiring multiple statements
		+ Not suitable for all scenarios, such as older browsers that don't support arrow functions
2. **Traditional Function Definitions**:
	* Pros:
		+ Well-established syntax and compatibility across most browsers and environments
		+ Often preferred for complex or long-lived code due to its expressiveness
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose compared to arrow functions
		+ May incur additional overhead operations (e.g., creating a new scope)

**Library Usage**

In the provided benchmark, there is no explicit library usage. However, it's worth noting that the `arrowFn` code uses the `=>` operator, which is part of the ECMAScript standard and widely supported in modern browsers.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these benchmarks (e.g., async/await, let/catch, destructuring).

**Other Alternatives**

If you'd like to explore other alternatives, here are a few examples:

* **Generators**: Instead of using arrow functions or traditional function definitions, you could use generators (e.g., `function* generator() { yield 4; }`) to test performance.
* **Closures**: You could also test the performance of closures (e.g., `var closure = (function() { return 4; })();`) as a contrast to arrow functions and traditional function definitions.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require modifications to your benchmark code to accommodate their unique syntax and features.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Fedora; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/90.0.4430.212 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 90 on Fedora

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
arrowFn	9003024.0 Ops/sec
function	20788616.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

zdzadza (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: arrowFn vs function

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

arrowFn

function

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):