Benchmark: Arrow function vs normal function comparison 2

Script Preparation code:

arrowFn = (a, b) => a + b;
function fn(a, b) {
    return a + b;
};

Tests:

Arrow function
arrowFn()
Normal function
fn()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Arrow function
Normal 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 dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two types of functions: arrow functions and traditional functions (also known as regular functions). The goal is to determine which type of function is more efficient in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Arrow Function**: An arrow function is a shorthand syntax for creating a function, using the `=>` operator. It's defined as `(parameters) => expression`.
2. **Traditional Function (Regular Function)**: A traditional function is a regular function definition using the `function` keyword.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Arrow Function**:
	+ Pros: Concise syntax, fewer lines of code, can be used within other functions without defining it first.
	+ Cons: Limited control over variable scoping, no explicit return type declaration, may not work in older JavaScript environments.
* **Traditional Function (Regular Function)**:
	+ Pros: Explicit control over variable scoping, clear and concise syntax, works in all JavaScript environments.
	+ Cons: More lines of code, less concise than arrow function.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark does not consider other factors that might affect performance, such as:

* Variable declarations (e.g., `let`, `const`, `var`)
* Function calls with `this` context
* Function arguments and parameter names
* Return type declaration

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided code. However, some browsers may include internal libraries that could potentially affect the benchmark results.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's described above.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you want to write your own benchmarking tool or script, here are some alternatives:

* Use a library like `Benchmark.js` or `Microbenchmark`, which provide more advanced features and options for writing benchmarks.
* Write a custom benchmark script using Node.js APIs (e.g., `process.stdout.write`) or other environments-specific methods.
* Consider using a testing framework like Jest or Mocha, which often include built-in support for running benchmarks.

For measuring performance in JavaScript, it's essential to keep the benchmark code as simple and concise as possible while still covering the aspects you want to measure.

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/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/108.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 108 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Arrow function	11304585.0 Ops/sec
Normal function	27150306.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Arrow function vs normal function comparison 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Arrow function vs Normal function

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Arrow function

Normal 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):