Benchmark: new arrow fn vs fn bind

Script Preparation code:

var fn = function() {
	var a = 0
    var b = Math.random() * 100
    var c = []
    for (let i = a; i < b; i++) c.push(i)
    while (b--) c.unshift(b)
}

Tests:

new arrow
var f = () => { var a = 0 var b = Math.random() * 100 var c = [] for (let i = a; i < b; i++) c.push(i) while (b--) c.unshift(b) }
fn bind
var f = fn.bind(undefined)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new arrow
fn bind

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The test is comparing two approaches to creating a function in JavaScript:

1. **New arrow function**: A shorthand syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) that allows you to define a function without using the traditional `function` keyword. The syntax is: `() => { code }`.
2. **Function bind**: A method that binds a function to an object, allowing it to be called as if it were a property of that object.

**Options being compared**

In this test, we have two options:

1. New arrow function (`() => { ... }`)
2. Function bind (`fn.bind(undefined)`)

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **New Arrow Function**: This syntax is concise and easy to read. It also has the benefits of implicit return types and block scope. However, it might not be as familiar or performant for older browsers.
* **Function Bind**: This method allows you to create a new function with a different `this` context, which can be useful in certain situations. However, it's often less readable and may introduce unnecessary overhead.

**Considerations:**

The test seems to focus on the performance differences between these two approaches. To get accurate results, the benchmark might consider factors such as:

* Browser support (new arrow function is widely supported since ES6)
* Execution context (function bind can change the `this` context of a function)
* Code optimization (the new arrow function syntax might be optimized by the engine)

**Library usage**

The test doesn't seem to use any external libraries. However, if we were to analyze the scripts further, we might notice that the `Math.random()` and `Array.prototype.push()` methods are used. These are part of the standard JavaScript library.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this test. Both approaches use a similar syntax for defining the function body (`for` loop, `while` loop).

However, it's worth noting that older browsers might not support some ES6 features like arrow functions or template literals.

**Alternatives**

If you were to create an alternative benchmark, you could consider adding more tests, such as:

* Using a different language (e.g., C++)
* Implementing the same logic using other JavaScript methods (e.g., `Array.prototype.forEach()` instead of loops)
* Adding additional browser support or device types
* Incorporating more advanced performance metrics (e.g., garbage collection, caching)

Keep in mind that creating a comprehensive benchmark would require careful consideration of various factors and edge cases to ensure accurate and reliable results.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
new arrow	1042203328.0 Ops/sec
fn bind	11085147.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

new arrow fn vs fn bind (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new arrow vs fn bind

Created: 11 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

new arrow

fn bind

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):