Benchmark: Arrow method - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Arrow function
const funct = (a) => a*a; const b = funct(2);
classic function
function funct(a) { return a*a; } const b = funct(2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Arrow function
classic function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Arrow function	55507608.0 Ops/sec
classic function	53875240.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is a complex task, and the provided benchmark definition and test cases are a good starting point.

**Benchmark Definition Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a simple JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two approaches:

1. **Arrow Method**: This approach uses an arrow function, which is a concise way to define small, single-purpose functions. The benchmark defines a constant `funct` using the arrow method and then calls it with the argument `2`.
2. **Classic Function**: This approach defines a traditional function using the `function` keyword and then calls it with the same argument `2`.

Both approaches calculate the square of the input value.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

1. **Arrow Method**: Uses an arrow function to define the calculation.
2. **Classic Function**: Uses a traditional function definition.

These two approaches have different characteristics that might impact performance:

* Arrow functions are generally considered faster and more memory-efficient than traditional functions because they don't create a new scope or declare their own `this` context.
* Traditional functions, on the other hand, can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new scope and declaring the function's context.

**Pros and Cons**

Pros of using arrow methods:

* Faster execution
* Reduced memory usage

Cons of using arrow methods:

* Less readable code for some developers
* May not work as expected in certain situations (e.g., when used with `this` or `bind()`)

Pros of using classic functions:

* More readable code
* Can be more flexible and powerful than arrow functions

Cons of using classic functions:

* Slower execution
* Increased memory usage

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect the performance or behavior of the benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

To measure JavaScript performance, you can consider using other benchmarking frameworks and tools, such as:

* V8 Benchmark (a set of benchmarks for measuring V8 JavaScript engine performance)
* SpiderMonkey Benchmark (a set of benchmarks for measuring SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine performance)
* jsPerf (a web-based tool for benchmarking JavaScript code)
* Node.js Benchmark (a set of benchmarks for measuring Node.js performance)

These tools can provide more comprehensive and detailed results, as well as support for different JavaScript engines and platforms.

Related benchmarks:

Arrow method (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Arrow function vs classic function

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Arrow function

classic 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):