Benchmark: Anonymous Function in Loop

Script Preparation code:

var x = 0;

function doSomething(x) {
  return x++;
}

Tests:

A
for(var i=0; i < 10; i++) { (function(someValue) { return x++; })(i); }
B
for(var i=0; i < 10; i++) { doSomething(i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
A
B

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches:

1. **Closure creation in a loop**: This involves creating a new function inside a loop that captures the `i` variable from the outer scope, creates a closure by returning `x++`, and increments `x`.
2. **Function call with parameter passing**: This approach simply calls the `doSomething` function with the current value of `i` as an argument.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

* Creating a new function inside a loop (closure creation)
* Passing the parameter to the existing function (`doSomething`) without creating a new function

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Closure Creation**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster because it avoids the overhead of passing an argument to `doSomething`.
		+ May exhibit different performance characteristics due to the closure's capture behavior.
	* Cons:
		+ Creates a new function on each iteration, which can lead to increased memory allocation and garbage collection.
		+ The function captures the outer scope's variable `x`, which may have unexpected side effects if `x` is modified elsewhere in the program.
2. **Function Call with Parameter Passing**:
	* Pros:
		+ No additional memory allocation or garbage collection overhead.
		+ Easier to understand and maintain, as the intent of passing an argument is clear.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of calling `doSomething` and passing the argument.

**Library/Function Usage**

The benchmark uses a custom function called `doSomething`, which takes a single parameter `x`. The purpose of this function is not explicitly stated, but based on its implementation, it appears to increment the value of `x` by 1 and return it.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no explicit mentions of special JavaScript features or syntax in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that the use of arrow functions (`(function(someValue) { ... })(i);`) is a modern feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This may be relevant if the benchmark is intended to demonstrate performance characteristics for this specific syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

In addition to the two approaches being compared, other alternatives might include:

* Using an array or similar data structure to store and reuse the closures created in each iteration.
* Implementing a custom caching mechanism to avoid creating multiple instances of `doSomething` on each iteration.
* Using a different JavaScript engine or virtual machine (VM) to execute the benchmark.

Keep in mind that the specific alternatives will depend on the goals and requirements of the benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
A	880932.7 Ops/sec
B	2148076.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Anonymous Function in Loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: A vs B

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

A

B

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):