Benchmark: callbacks-vs-promises

Script Preparation code:

handleCb = cb => cb(null);

newFunction = function() {
	handleCb(function(error, res) {});
}

newPromise = function() {
	return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {});
}

promiseResolve = function() {
   	Promise.resolve().then(() => {});
}

Tests:

new func
newFunction
new promise
newPromise
promise resolve
promiseResolve

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new func
new promise
promise resolve

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/114.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new func	16781868.0 Ops/sec
new promise	17227508.0 Ops/sec
promise resolve	16728096.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches: callbacks, promises, and promises with a resolution function. The goal is to determine which approach is faster in executing a specific task.

**Options Compared**

1. **Callbacks**: A traditional asynchronous programming model where a function is called back after an operation completes.
2. **Promises**: A modern asynchronous programming model that allows for more concise and readable code, replacing callbacks with promises.
3. **Promises with Resolution Function**: An approach that uses promises but adds an additional resolution function to handle the result of the promise.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Callbacks**:
	* Pros: Simple and widely supported, can be used in older browsers.
	* Cons: Error handling can be cumbersome, code can become complex and hard to read.
2. **Promises**:
	* Pros: More concise and readable code, better error handling, and support for async/await syntax.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of creating and resolving promises, may not perform as well in older browsers.
3. **Promises with Resolution Function**:
	* Pros: Combines the benefits of promises with traditional callback-style error handling.
	* Cons: May add unnecessary complexity, can be slower than promises alone.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the `Promise` class from the JavaScript standard library to create and resolve promises. The purpose of using promises is to provide a more modern and concise way of handling asynchronous operations.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark uses the async/await syntax, which was introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7). This syntax allows for more readable code by avoiding the need to explicitly handle promise resolution. The test cases use promises with resolution functions to demonstrate the performance difference between this approach and traditional callbacks.

**Other Alternatives**

There are other alternatives to promises, such as:

1. **Cooperative scheduling**: A technique that uses cooperative multitasking to schedule tasks, which can be more efficient than promises.
2. **Native Web Workers**: A way to run JavaScript in parallel using native threads, which can provide better performance for CPU-bound tasks.

However, these alternatives are not directly comparable to the promise-based approach used in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code Explanation**

The script preparation code defines three functions:

1. `handleCb`: A function that takes a callback function as an argument and returns it.
2. `newFunction`: A function that calls `handleCb` with a new callback function that executes when the promise is resolved or rejected.
3. `newPromise`: A function that creates a new promise using the `Promise` constructor.
4. `promiseResolve`: A function that resolves the created promise.

These functions are used to create and execute promises, allowing the benchmark to compare their performance.

Related benchmarks:

callbacks-vs-promises (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new func vs new promise vs promise resolve

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

new func

new promise

promise resolve

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):