Benchmark: Closure vs non-closure

Tests:

Closure
const fn = a => b => { return `${a} + ${b}` }
Function
const fn = (a, b) => { return `${a} + ${b}` }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Closure
Function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches: closures and non-closures (functions). The goal is to determine which approach is faster in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared:

1. **Closure**: A closure is a function that has access to its own scope, as well as the scope of its outer functions. In this benchmark, a closure is created using an arrow function with `const fn = a => b => { ... }`. This creates a new scope for the inner function, which has access to both `a` and `b`.
2. **Non-closure (Function)**: A non-closure is a regular function that doesn't have access to its own scope. In this benchmark, a non-closure is created using a traditional function declaration with `const fn = (a, b) => { ... }`. This creates a new scope for the function, but it's not tied to any outer functions.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Closure**: Pros:
	+ Can capture variables from the surrounding scope.
	+ Can be useful when working with higher-order functions or closures.
* Cons:
	+ Can lead to memory leaks if not properly cleaned up.
	+ Can make code harder to read and debug due to the complex scope relationships.
* **Non-closure (Function)**: Pros:
	+ Easier to understand and maintain due to a simpler scope.
	+ Less prone to memory leaks since there's no implicit capture of variables.
* Cons:
	+ Requires explicit argument passing, which can lead to more code.

**Library Usage**

There doesn't appear to be any external libraries being used in this benchmark. The test cases only rely on JavaScript core functionality.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None of the provided benchmarks use special JavaScript features or syntax that require explanation.

**Other Considerations**

When testing closures vs non-closures, it's essential to consider the following:

* Code readability and maintainability
* Performance impact (which is the focus of this benchmark)
* Memory usage and potential for leaks

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare these approaches using a different framework or tool, here are some alternatives:

1. **Java**: Use Java 8's functional programming features, such as lambda expressions and method references, to create closures.
2. **Python**: Use Python's closure concept, which is similar to JavaScript's closure, to compare the performance of closures vs non-closures.
3. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Consider using a dedicated benchmarking framework like JMH (Java Microbenchmarking Harness) or Pytest-benchmark to write and run benchmarks.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative will depend on your specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.110 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Closure	916225600.0 Ops/sec
Function	907040704.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Closure vs non-closure (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Closure vs Function

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Closure

Function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):