Benchmark: get through closure vs get through param

Script Preparation code:

object = {value: 'data'}

function getValueClosure(){
 return object.value 
}

function getValueParam(object){
 return object.value 
}

Tests:

closure
getValueClosure()
parameter
getValueParam(object)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
closure
parameter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its results to help you understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches:

1. Getting the value through a closure (`getValueClosure()`)
2. Getting the value through a parameter (`getValueParam(object)`)

The script preparation code defines an object `object` with a property `value` set to `'data'`. Two functions are then defined: `getValueClosure()` and `getValueParam(object)`, which return the value of `object.value`.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Closure**: The value is accessed through a closure, which means that the function has access to its own scope and can capture variables from that scope.
2. **Parameter**: The value is accessed through a parameter, where the function receives an object as an argument.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Closure**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be more efficient since the closure captures the variable in its own scope, avoiding the need to access it through the `object` reference.
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to unexpected behavior if the closure is not properly defined or referenced.
2. **Parameter**
	* Pros:
		+ Is a safer approach since it uses a explicit parameter passing mechanism.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires additional code to pass the `object` as an argument to the function.

**Library and Special Features**

There is no specific library being used in this benchmark, but JavaScript itself is being utilized. There are no special features or syntax mentioned in the provided code snippet.

**Other Alternatives**

To test similar benchmarks, you might consider comparing other approaches such as:

1. Using a variable captured through an arrow function (`function getValueArrowParam() { return object.value; }`)
2. Using a closure with a different scope (e.g., `let value = 'data'; function getValueClosure() { return value; }`)

Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional variables or complexities to the benchmark, which might affect its accuracy.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided JSON contains two script preparation codes:

1. `object = {value: 'data'}\r\n\r\nfunction getValueClosure(){\r\n return object.value \r\n}`
2. `object = {value: 'data'}\r\n\r\nfunction getValueParam(object){\r\n return object.value \r\n}`

These codes define the same data structure and functions as described earlier.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **Closure**: The test case calls `getValueClosure()`, which returns the value through a closure.
2. **Parameter**: The test case calls `getValueParam(object)`, where `object` is an argument passed to the function.

The latest benchmark result shows that Chrome 129 on Mac OS X 10.15.7 executes both functions at different execution rates, indicating that one approach might be more efficient than the other under specific conditions.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 14 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
closure	4396303.0 Ops/sec
parameter	4372335.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

get through closure vs get through param (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: closure vs parameter

Created: 14 days ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

closure

parameter

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):