Benchmark: Return true vs empty body

Script Preparation code:

var notDefined;

var emptyFunc = function() {};
var trueFunc = function() { return true; }
var undefinedFunc = function() { return undefined; }
var nullFunc = function() { return null; }
var notDefinedFunc = function() { return notDefined; }

Tests:

emptyFunc
emptyFunc();
trueFunc
trueFunc();
undefinedFunc
undefinedFunc();
nullFunc
nullFunc();
notDefinedFunc
notDefinedFunc();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
emptyFunc
trueFunc
undefinedFunc
nullFunc
notDefinedFunc

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark named "Return true vs empty body". It includes two types of functions:

1. `emptyFunc`: An empty function with no code.
2. `trueFunc`, `undefinedFunc`, `nullFunc`, and `notDefinedFunc`: Functions that return a specific value when called.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution times of calling these four functions. The options being compared are essentially the number of executions of each function, which affects the performance of the JavaScript engine.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **Empty Function (`emptyFunc`)**: This approach is likely used to test the baseline or initial state of the JavaScript engine. Since there's no code to execute, it serves as a reference point for other functions.
	* Pros: Quick execution time, ideal for measuring baseline performance.
	* Cons: May not accurately represent real-world usage.
2. **Functions with Defined Behavior (`trueFunc`, `undefinedFunc`, `nullFunc`, and `notDefinedFunc`)**: These approaches test the engine's behavior when executing code that returns a specific value.
	* Pros: More representative of real-world scenarios, allows for comparison of function performance.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to function calls and return statements.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, it's essential to note that many modern JavaScript engines rely on libraries like V8 (used by Chrome) for their execution environment.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Mac OS X 10.12.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
emptyFunc	9444917.0 Ops/sec
trueFunc	9237855.0 Ops/sec
undefinedFunc	3261186.2 Ops/sec
nullFunc	9212981.0 Ops/sec
notDefinedFunc	4833768.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Return true vs empty body (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: emptyFunc vs trueFunc vs undefinedFunc vs nullFunc vs notDefinedFunc

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

emptyFunc

trueFunc

undefinedFunc

nullFunc

notDefinedFunc

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):