Benchmark: function vs const

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];

Tests:

function
function func(arr, x) { arr.push(x); } for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { func(arr, i); }
const
const func = (arr, x) => { arr.push(x); } for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { func(arr, i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
function
const

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.81 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
function	746.5 Ops/sec
const	753.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing two approaches to create and run a simple function: one using the `function` keyword (traditional way) and another using the `const` keyword with an arrow function syntax (`() => {}`).

**Options compared**

The test cases are comparing:

1. Traditional function declaration with `var` scope (`function func(arr, x) {...}`)
2. Const variable declaration with arrow function syntax (`const func = (arr, x) => {...}`)

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Traditional function declaration**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported by older browsers
		+ Can be used for functions that need to be reassigned or have a dynamic scope
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose code
		+ Potential performance impact due to scope creation and variable management
2. **Const variable declaration with arrow function syntax**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise code
		+ Improved performance due to reduced scope creation and variable management
		+ Better support for predictable behavior and immutability
	* Cons:
		+ Requires modern browsers (ECMAScript 2015+)

**Library usage**

There is no specific library being used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the `for...of` loop is not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition, but it's implied in the test cases.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The use of arrow functions (`() => {}`) and const variable declaration (`const func = (arr, x) => {...}`) are examples of modern JavaScript features. Arrow functions provide a concise way to define small, anonymous functions, while const variables ensure that variables have a constant value.

**Other alternatives**

Alternative approaches to this benchmark could include:

1. Using `let` instead of `var` for function declarations
2. Comparing the performance of different function call patterns (e.g., using `call()`, `apply()`, or passing arguments directly)
3. Incorporating other modern JavaScript features, such as classes, generators, or async/await
4. Testing the performance impact of adding additional complexity to the functions (e.g., with conditionals, loops, or nested functions)

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require changes to the benchmark definition and test cases.

In summary, this benchmark is testing the performance difference between traditional function declaration and const variable declaration with arrow function syntax. The test results will provide insights into the optimal way to create and run JavaScript functions for specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

function vs const (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: function vs const

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

function

const

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):