Benchmark: Explicit call vs regular call

Script Preparation code:

let count = 0;
let scope = {};

function regular(){
  count++
}


for(i=0; i<10; i++){}

Tests:

call function
regular()
call function with call
regular.call()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
call function
call function with call

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help explain the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between making an explicit call to a function and using the `call` method to invoke a function with its `this` context.

**Script Preparation Code**
```javascript
let count = 0;
let scope = {};

function regular() {
  count++;
}
```
This script defines two variables: `count` initialized to 0, and `scope`, an empty object. It also defines a function named `regular`. The purpose of this code is to increment the `count` variable when the `regular` function is called.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided for this benchmark, which means that the script will be executed in isolation without any external dependencies or side effects.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **call function**: This test case calls the `regular` function directly.
2. **call function with call**: This test case uses the `call` method to invoke the `regular` function with its own `this` context.

**Performance Comparison**

When comparing these two approaches, we need to consider the following factors:

* **Function invocation overhead**: The `call` method adds an additional layer of indirection, which may introduce performance overhead. Direct function calls are typically faster and more efficient.
* **Context switching**: When using `call`, the engine needs to switch contexts to access the `this` value, which can lead to additional overhead compared to direct function calls.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Explicit call** (Direct function calls):
	+ Pros: Faster, more efficient, and typically has less overhead.
	+ Cons: May be less readable or maintainable for complex codebases.
* **call method**:
	+ Pros: Provides flexibility in calling functions with specific contexts, can be useful in certain edge cases.
	+ Cons: Adds an extra layer of indirection, may introduce performance overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When writing JavaScript code, it's essential to consider the trade-offs between readability, maintainability, and performance. In general, direct function calls are preferred for simple cases, while the `call` method might be necessary in more complex scenarios where context switching is required.

If you need to test or analyze specific JavaScript features or syntax, MeasureThat.net provides a great platform to do so. You can create your own benchmarks by defining different script and HTML preparation codes, and then run them through the MeasureThat.net engine.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

MeasureThat.net offers various benchmark templates that allow you to compare the performance of different JavaScript constructs, such as:

* Object creation vs. Array creation
* Loop iterations (e.g., `for` loops, `while` loops)
* Function calls with and without caching
* Async/await vs. callback-based code

By creating and running your own benchmarks, you can gain insights into the performance characteristics of different JavaScript techniques and optimize your code for better performance.

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/101.0.4951.64 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 101 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
call function	25689440.0 Ops/sec
call function with call	22917460.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Explicit call vs regular call (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: call function vs call function with call

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

call function

call function with call

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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