This benchmark compares the performance of two different ways to handle function parameters in JavaScript: positional arguments (pargs) and named (or destructured) arguments (nargs). The goal is to determine which approach is more efficient in terms of execution speed.

Benchmarked Functions

1. Positional Arguments (pargs):

   • Definition: This function takes two parameters, row and column, and computes their combined length using row.length + column.length.
   • Usage in Benchmark: The benchmark runs a nested loop where it calls pargs(row, column) for every combination of row from rows and column from columns.

2. Named (Destructured) Arguments (nargs):

   • Definition: This function accepts a single object parameter that is destructured into row and column. It performs the same length calculation as pargs.
   • Usage in Benchmark: Similar to pargs, this function is called within a nested loop but uses nargs({ row, column }) to pass the arguments as an object.

Performance Results

The test results show a slight performance difference:

• nargs: 96.59 executions per second
• pargs: 96.10 executions per second

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Positional Arguments (pargs)

• Pros:

  • Generally faster in practice because fewer operations are needed to access the parameters.
  • Simplicity in calling functions when the number of parameters is fixed and known.

• Cons:

  • Less readable, especially with multiple parameters; the order of parameters must be remembered.
  • More error-prone; calling the function with the wrong order can lead to unexpected behaviors.

Named Arguments / Destructuring (nargs)

• Pros:

  • Enhanced readability; parameter names are clear and self-documenting.
  • Flexibility; allows for optional parameters without changing the function signature.
  • Less error-prone if objects are constructed with clear identifiers.

• Cons:

  • Slightly slower because object creation and destructuring incur some overhead.
  • More complex function signatures can make it harder to understand at a glance for less experienced developers.

Other Considerations

• The choice between these two strategies may depend on the specific application. For performance-sensitive applications, positional arguments might be favored; whereas, for ease of maintenance and clarity, destructured arguments could be preferable.
• The size of the input data (i.e., number of rows and columns) can also influence the performance results more dramatically than the choice of argument passing style when scaling up.

Alternatives

Apart from positional and destructured arguments, there are other ways to handle function parameters, including:

• Default Parameters: Allowing functions to be called with some parameters omitted.
• Rest Parameters: Using ...args syntax to accept any number of parameters.
• Object Parameters without Destructuring: Passing a single object as an argument without destructuring, which retains some clarity but may not be as readable as destructured syntax.

Overall, the best approach will depend on the specific needs of the application, including factors like code maintainability, performance requirements, and developer familiarity.