Benchmark: array fn vs function 2

Script Preparation code:

var fn1 = (a,b) => a + b
var fn2 = function(a,b){ return a + b }

Tests:

arrow fn
fn1(1,1)
function
fn2(1,1)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
arrow fn
function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition defines two functions, `fn1` and `fn2`, which are compared in terms of performance. The difference between them lies in how they're defined:

- **`fn1`**: This is an arrow function (also known as a lambda function or shorthand function), defined using the syntax `(a,b) => a + b`. Arrow functions were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provide a concise way to define small, one-time-use functions.
- **`fn2`**: This is a traditional function definition, defined using the `function` keyword followed by parameters and a body: `function(a,b){ return a + b }`. Traditional function definitions have been around since the early days of JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of:

1. **Arrow Function (`fn1`)**: This option uses an arrow function, which is expected to be more concise and potentially faster than traditional function definitions.
2. **Traditional Function (`fn2`)**: This option uses a traditional function definition, which may be slower due to overhead from the `function` keyword.

**Pros and Cons**

- **Arrow Function (`fn1`)**:
  - Pros: Concise, easier to read, potentially faster due to reduced overhead.
  - Cons: May not be supported in older browsers or environments that don't support ES6 features.

- **Traditional Function (`fn2`)**:
  - Pros: Widely supported across browsers and environments, less prone to issues with newer JavaScript versions.
  - Cons: Longer syntax, potentially slower due to additional overhead.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that arrow functions were introduced in ES6 (ECMAScript 2015), which means they might not be supported in older browsers or environments.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives for creating small, one-time-use functions, you could consider:

- **Lambda Functions**: In some JavaScript implementations (like Node.js), lambda functions are also known as arrow functions.
- **Closure Functions**: You can create a closure by defining a function inside another function. This approach might be useful if you need to encapsulate data or behavior.

In summary, the benchmark compares the performance of two common ways to define small functions in JavaScript: arrow functions and traditional function definitions. The choice between these options depends on your specific use case, target audience, and desired level of conciseness.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
arrow fn	32860240.0 Ops/sec
function	33178510.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

array fn vs function 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: arrow fn vs function

Created: 10 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

arrow fn

function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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