Benchmark: noop function call vs conditional

Tests:

noop function call
const l = 10000; const zNodeFn1 = zNode => zNode; const zNodeFn2 = () => {}; for( let i = 0; i < l; i++ ) { let zNodeFn = i % 2 ? zNodeFn1 : zNodeFn2; zNodeFn( i ); }
conditional
const l = 10000; const zNodeFn1 = zNode => zNode; for( let i = 0; i < l; i++ ) { if( i % 2 === 0 ) zNodeFn1( i ); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
noop function call
conditional

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/114.0.1823.67

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
noop function call	2495.4 Ops/sec
conditional	2766.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents two test cases, which are designed to compare the performance of two different approaches: a "noop function call" (also known as a no-op or identity function) and a conditional statement.

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **noop function call**: This test case creates an array of 10,000 elements and then iterates over it using a for loop. Inside the loop, a variable `zNodeFn` is assigned to either `zNodeFn1` (a function that simply returns its input) or `zNodeFn2` (a no-op function). The chosen function is then called with the current index as an argument.
2. **conditional**: This test case is similar to the first one, but instead of using a no-op function, it uses a conditional statement to determine which function to call.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases are comparing the performance of:

1. Using a no-op function (noop function call)
2. Using a conditional statement

**Pros and Cons**

* **No-op function**: This approach is simple and easy to understand, but it may not be as efficient as other approaches since the function is doing nothing.
	+ Pros: Easy to implement, minimal overhead.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to unnecessary computations.
* **Conditional statement**: This approach uses a more traditional conditional statement to determine which function to call. It may be slightly more efficient than the no-op function approach.
	+ Pros: Can take advantage of compiler optimizations, less overhead compared to no-op function.
	+ Cons: More complex and harder to understand.

**Library Used**

None, as this benchmark is testing JavaScript's built-in language features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

* **For...of loop**: This test case uses a for-of loop, which allows iterating over an array without manually incrementing the index.
* **Arrow function**: Both `zNodeFn1` and `zNodeFn2` are defined as arrow functions, which are a concise way to define small functions in JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to write this benchmark using a different language or framework, here are some alternatives:

* Python: Use a for loop and lambda functions to compare the performance of no-op function and conditional statement.
* C++: Use a for loop and function pointers to compare the performance of no-op function and conditional statement.

However, it's worth noting that JavaScript is a dynamically-typed language with built-in features like `for...of` loops and arrow functions, which make it an ideal choice for this kind of benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

noop function call vs conditional (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: noop function call vs conditional

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

noop function call

conditional

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):