Benchmark: Scoping test without log x10

Tests:

1
var test = function test() { var x = 0; var nested= function() { for (var i=0; i< 10000000; i++) { x = x + Math.random(); } } nested(); }; test();
2
(function () { var x = 0; var nested= function() { for (var i=0; i< 10000000; i++) { x = x + Math.random(); } } nested(); })();
3
(function test() { var x = 0; var nested= function() { for (var i=0; i< 10000000; i++) { x = x + Math.random(); } } nested(); })();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
1
2
3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Script Preparation Code and Benchmark Definition**

The script preparation code is empty, which means that the JavaScript engine will generate the script dynamically when the benchmark runs.

The benchmark definition contains three different ways of defining a function:

1. **Traditional `var` function declaration**: `var test = function test() { ... }`
2. **Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE) with `var`**: `(function () { ... })()`
3. **Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE) without `var`**: `(function test() { ... })()` (note the missing `var` keyword)

**Comparison of Options**

The three options are being compared in terms of their performance.

* The first option, using a traditional `var` function declaration, creates a new scope for the `test` function and its inner function (`nested`). This is a common way to define functions in JavaScript.
* The second option, using an IIFE with `var`, also creates a new scope, but it's done using a self-invoking anonymous function. This approach avoids polluting the global namespace with the `test` variable.
* The third option, using an IIFE without `var`, does not create a new scope for the `nested` function, which is defined inside the outer scope of the `test` function. However, this is not a recommended way to define functions in JavaScript, as it can lead to unexpected behavior and security issues.

**Pros and Cons**

* Traditional `var` function declaration:
	+ Pros: easy to understand and implement.
	+ Cons: creates a new scope, which may be unnecessary.
* IIFE with `var`:
	+ Pros: avoids polluting the global namespace, creates a new scope.
	+ Cons: requires an extra pair of parentheses.
* IIFE without `var`:
	+ Pros: none (actually, this is not recommended).
	+ Cons: can lead to unexpected behavior and security issues.

**Library and Purpose**

There are no libraries used in the benchmark definition. However, the benchmark results include information about the device platform, operating system, and browser version, which suggests that the tests were run on a mobile device with Firefox OS.

**Special JavaScript Features or Syntax**

None of the options use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's standard.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test these scenarios in a different way, here are some alternatives:

* Test the impact of using `const` instead of `var` on function scope.
* Compare the performance of different ways of defining functions (e.g., arrow functions vs. traditional function declarations).
* Test the behavior of JavaScript engines with different optimizations enabled or disabled.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require modifications to the benchmark definition and script preparation code.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Mobile; LYF/F120B/LYF-F120B-001-02-34-170919-i;Android; rv:48.0) Gecko/48.0 Firefox/48.0 KAIOS/2.5

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 48 on Firefox OS

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
1	0.6 Ops/sec
2	0.5 Ops/sec
3	0.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Scoping test without log x10 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: 1 vs 2 vs 3

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

1

2

3

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):