Benchmark: Class method using arrow function expression vs normal function comparison

Script Preparation code:

class Arrow {
    constructor() {};
    test = () => 1;
}

var arrow = new Arrow();

class Normal {
    constructor() {};
    test() {
        return 1
    }
}

var normal = new Normal();

Tests:

Arrow function method
arrow.test()
Normal function method
normal.test()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Arrow function method
Normal function method

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/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Arrow function method	28645864.0 Ops/sec
Normal function method	28747798.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents two different approaches to implementing a simple method in JavaScript:

1. **Arrow Function Method**: The first approach uses an arrow function expression (`=>`) to define the `test` method within a class constructor.
2. **Normal Function Method**: The second approach defines a traditional function using the `function` keyword and returns from it.

The script preparation code provides the implementation details for both approaches:

* For the arrow function method, a new class `Arrow` is created with an instance variable `test` initialized as an arrow function expression that returns 1.
* For the normal function method, another class `Normal` is created with an instance variable `test` initialized as a traditional function that returns 1.

The HTML preparation code is empty in this case, so we can assume it's not relevant to the JavaScript performance comparison.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are compared:

* **Arrow Function Method**: This approach uses an arrow function expression to define the `test` method.
* **Normal Function Method**: This traditional function implementation returns from the function using `return`.

**Pros and Cons**

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

### Arrow Function Method

Pros:

* **Conciseness**: Arrow functions are more concise and can be defined inline, which may lead to better code readability.
* **Less Syntax Overhead**: No need for explicit function declaration or `return` statements.

Cons:

* **Performance Overhead**: Some studies suggest that arrow functions may incur a small performance overhead due to the creation of an additional scope object. However, this difference is often negligible in most real-world scenarios.

### Normal Function Method

Pros:

* **Better Readability**: Traditional function declarations can be more readable, especially for complex logic or methods with multiple statements.
* **Explicitness**: The `return` statement makes it clear what the function does, which can improve code maintainability.

Cons:

* **More Syntax Overhead**: Requires explicit function declaration and `return` statements, making the code slightly less concise.

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, some JavaScript engines (e.g., V8) use their own internal optimizations for functions, which might affect the performance comparison.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

This benchmark does not utilize any special features like async/await, destructuring, or ES6 classes. The code uses traditional class definitions and function declarations, making it accessible to a wide range of developers.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives for this benchmark, here are a few options:

* **Async/Await**: Replace the synchronous `test` method with an asynchronous implementation using async/await.
* **Generator Functions**: Use generator functions (e.g., `function*`) instead of traditional arrow or normal function implementations.
* **Closures**: Experiment with closures to create private methods within the class.
* **Higher-Order Functions**: Compare performance using higher-order functions (e.g., `map()`, `filter()`) and functional programming concepts.

Feel free to experiment with these alternatives if you'd like to explore more JavaScript performance comparison scenarios!

Related benchmarks:

Class method using arrow function expression vs normal function comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Arrow function method vs Normal function method

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Arrow function method

Normal function method

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):