Benchmark: Noop vs new arrow function calls

Script Preparation code:

window.noop = () => {};

Tests:

Noop
const func = noop; func();
New arrow function
const func = () => {}; func();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Noop
New arrow function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its results.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: `noop` (a traditional function call) and a new arrow function (`() => {}`) in JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution speed of two approaches:

1. **Traditional function call**: Using the `noop` variable, which is set to an empty function using `window.noop = () => {};`. This approach calls the `noop` function directly.
2. **Arrow function**: Using a new arrow function, defined as `const func = () => {};`, and then calling it.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Traditional Function Call (Noop)**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand and implement, familiar syntax for most developers.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the function call itself, potential cache misses if the function is not inlined.
2. **Arrow Function**:
	* Pros: More concise and readable, potentially faster execution due to reduced overhead of function calls (no `this` binding, no explicit return type).
	* Cons: May be less familiar to some developers, potential issues with arrow functions and their scoping.

**Library and Purpose**

The benchmark uses the `window.noop` variable, which is a global object used in older browsers to create a placeholder function. Its purpose is to provide a way to test function call performance without affecting other code execution.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for testing function call performance could include:

* Using `Function()` constructor, which creates a new global function object.
* Utilizing `native` functions like `Math.sin()` or `Date.now()`, which are optimized for performance.
* Implementing custom microbenchmarks using assembly language or other low-level languages.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative approaches depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Noop	20762566.0 Ops/sec
New arrow function	235380416.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Noop vs new arrow function calls (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Noop vs New arrow function

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Noop

New arrow function

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):