Benchmark: Arrow function vs normal function comparison 3

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Arrow function
arrowFn(1, 2)
Normal function
fn(1, 2)

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

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 16_3 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) CriOS/111.0.5563.72 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile iOS 111 on iOS 16.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Arrow function	13442740.0 Ops/sec
Normal function	13471121.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

The benchmark is comparing two types of functions: normal functions and arrow functions. The test case uses JavaScript, which allows for both functional programming styles.

**Normal Functions vs Arrow Functions**

In JavaScript, a **normal function** is a traditional function declaration, defined using the `function` keyword:
```javascript
fn(a, b) {
  return a + b;
}
```
On the other hand, an **arrow function**, introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), is a concise way to define small, single-expression functions. It uses the `=>` operator instead of `function`:
```javascript
const arrowFn = (a, b) => a + b;
```
**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Normal Functions**: The test runs the traditional function definition using the `fn` variable.
2. **Arrow Functions**: The test runs the arrow function definition using the `arrowFn` variable.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Normal Functions:**

* Pros:
	+ Easy to read and understand for most developers.
	+ Can be used in older browsers that don't support arrow functions.
* Cons:
	+ Can lead to more verbose code, which can slow down execution.
	+ May require more boilerplate code (e.g., function declarations, variable declarations).

**Arrow Functions:**

* Pros:
	+ Concise and compact syntax, making it easier to write smaller code snippets.
	+ Can improve performance due to reduced overhead from function definitions.
* Cons:
	+ May be less readable for developers unfamiliar with arrow functions.
	+ Requires support for ES6+ features in older browsers.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also considers the **JavaScript Engine**, which is responsible for executing the code. In this case, it's running on a mobile device (iPhone) using Chrome Mobile iOS 111.

Additionally, note that the test cases use a simple arithmetic operation (`a + b`) to demonstrate the performance difference between normal and arrow functions.

**Library Usage**

There is no library mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or test cases. The tests rely solely on JavaScript built-in features.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used beyond the basic `=>` operator for defining arrow functions.

Now, regarding alternatives to this benchmark:

Other benchmarks that compare normal functions and arrow functions include:

* Benchmarking frameworks like Jest, Mocha, or Benchmark.js.
* Online platforms like jsperf (now defunct), jsbenedict.org, or jsbench.net.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking framework or platform often depends on the specific use case, testing requirements, and target audience.

Related benchmarks:

Arrow function vs normal function comparison 3 (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 2 months ago):