Benchmark: Return true vs empty body

Script Preparation code:

var notDefined;
var defined = 1;

var emptyFunc = function() {};
var trueFunc = function() { return true; }
var undefinedFunc = function() { return undefined; }
var nullFunc = function() { return null; }
var notDefinedFunc = function() { return notDefined; }
var definedFunc = function() { return defined; }
var staticFunc = function() { return 1; }

Tests:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
emptyFunc
trueFunc
undefinedFunc
nullFunc
notDefinedFunc
definedFunc
staticFunc

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of different functions in JavaScript. The test case is designed to measure the execution time of various functions that return true, undefined, null, or an invalid value (notDefined).

**Options Compared**

The following options are compared in this benchmark:

1. **Return true**: A simple function that returns `true`.
2. **Empty body**: An empty function with no code inside.
3. **Undefined**: A function that returns `undefined`.
4. **Null**: A function that returns `null`.
5. **NotDefined** (invalid): A function that attempts to return an invalid value (`notDefined`).
6. **Defined variable**: A function that uses a defined variable (`defined`) and returns its value.
7. **Static function**: A function that is declared inside another function and returns a static value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Return true**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward, and well-behaved.
	* Cons: May not be representative of real-world use cases where functions often have side effects or return complex values.
2. **Empty body**:
	* Pros: Can help identify performance improvements by removing unnecessary code.
	* Cons: May not accurately represent the execution time of a function that returns a value, as the function body is empty.
3. **Undefined**:
	* Pros: Can help test the handling of undefined values in functions.
	* Cons: May be considered an edge case and may not be representative of typical use cases where functions return defined values.
4. **Null**:
	* Pros: Similar to undefined, can help test the handling of null values in functions.
	* Cons: May also be considered an edge case.
5. **NotDefined (invalid)**:
	* Pros: Can help identify issues with function execution when attempting to return invalid values.
	* Cons: Introduces a potential source of errors and may not be representative of typical use cases where functions return valid values.
6. **Defined variable**:
	* Pros: Uses a defined variable, which can help represent real-world use cases where functions rely on external state or parameters.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the use of a defined variable.
7. **Static function**:
	* Pros: Can help identify performance improvements by allowing the function body to be compiled and optimized.
	* Cons: May not accurately represent the execution time of a function that uses dynamic variables or parameters.

**Library and Syntax**

The test case does not appear to use any external libraries, but it does utilize some JavaScript syntax features, such as:

1. **Arrow functions**: Used in the `emptyFunc`, `trueFunc`, `undefinedFunc`, `nullFunc`, and `notDefinedFunc` tests.
2. **Function declarations**: Used in the `definedFunc` and `staticFunc` tests.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark test case is designed to be platform-agnostic, using a Chrome browser emulator to execute the JavaScript code. The test results provide insight into the performance characteristics of each function variant on this specific platform.

In terms of alternatives, MeasureThat.net provides various benchmarking tools and frameworks for testing JavaScript performance. Some popular alternatives include:

1. **Benchmark.js**: A lightweight benchmarking library that allows you to create and run microbenchmarks.
2. **jsperf**: A web-based benchmarking tool specifically designed for measuring JavaScript performance.
3. **CoffeeScript's `benchmark` module**: A built-in module in CoffeeScript that provides a simple way to write and run benchmarks.

These alternatives offer varying levels of complexity, customization options, and platform support compared to MeasureThat.net.

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/53.0.2785.143 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	9043710.0 Ops/sec
trueFunc	8971149.0 Ops/sec
undefinedFunc	3058764.2 Ops/sec
nullFunc	9285295.0 Ops/sec
notDefinedFunc	4881832.5 Ops/sec
definedFunc	3535127.2 Ops/sec
staticFunc	9332261.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Return true vs empty body (version: 0)

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

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

emptyFunc

trueFunc

undefinedFunc

nullFunc

notDefinedFunc

definedFunc

staticFunc

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):