Benchmark: React Const vs Function

HTML Preparation code:

<script crossorigin src="https://unpkg.com/react@16/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script crossorigin src="https://unpkg.com/react-dom@16/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<div id="dest"></div>

Tests:

const
const Hello = ({toWhat}) => React.createElement('div', null, `Hello ${toWhat}`); ReactDOM.render( React.createElement(Hello, {toWhat: 'World'}, null), document.getElementById('dest') );
function
const Hello = ({toWhat}) => React.createElement('div', null, `Hello ${toWhat}`); ReactDOM.render( React.createElement(Hello, {toWhat: 'Worldd'}, null), document.getElementById('dest') );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
const
function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using `const` and using a function with arrow syntax (`=>`) in a React-based application.

In this benchmark, users create a simple React component that displays a greeting message based on a "toWhat" parameter. The component is then rendered to an HTML element on the page using ReactDOM.

The key difference between the two test cases lies in the declaration of the `Hello` function. In one case, it's declared as a constant using the `const` keyword, while in the other case, it's declared as a function with arrow syntax (`=>`).

**Comparison Options**

In this benchmark, we have two options being compared:

1. **Const**: This option uses the `const` keyword to declare the `Hello` function. The benefits of using `const` include:
	* Memory efficiency: Since `const` variables are immutable, they don't need to be stored in memory, which can lead to performance improvements.
	* Code clarity: Using `const` explicitly conveys that a variable should not be changed after it's initialized.
2. **Function**: This option uses the arrow syntax (`=>`) to declare the `Hello` function. The benefits of using this syntax include:
	* Conciseness: Arrow functions are often shorter and more readable than traditional function declarations.
	* Closure support: Arrow functions inherit the scope of their surrounding environment, which can be useful in certain situations.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Const**:
	* Pros:
		+ Memory efficiency
		+ Code clarity
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to longer compilation times due to type checking
2. **Function**:
	* Pros:
		+ Conciseness
		+ Closure support
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to less memory-efficient code

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, we're using the React library, which is a JavaScript framework for building user interfaces. The React library provides features like JSX (JavaScript XML) syntax, components, and state management.

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

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark, you could explore other approaches, such as:

1. **Using classes instead of functions**: Instead of using arrow functions or the `const` keyword, you could use traditional class-based functions.
2. **Adding more complexity to the component**: You could add more features to the React component, like props or state management, to make it more challenging and representative of real-world usage.
3. **Using different browsers or devices**: The benchmark only tests on a single browser (Firefox 126) and device platform (Desktop). You could expand the test suite to cover multiple browsers, devices, and platforms.

By exploring these alternatives, you can gain a deeper understanding of the performance implications of different coding approaches in React-based applications.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/126.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
const	53737.6 Ops/sec
function	76293.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

React Const vs Function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: const vs function

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

const

function

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):