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

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

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months 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.

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 2 months ago):