Benchmark: IIFE vs Normal Fixed 2

Script Preparation code:

var iife = (() => {
  return window.location !== window.parent.location;
})();

var normal = () => {
  return window.location !== window.parent.location;
}

Tests:

iife
console.log(iife)
normal
console.log(normal())

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
iife
normal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/80.0.3987.132 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 80 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
iife	39145.7 Ops/sec
normal	28020.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares the performance of two different ways to define and execute a simple JavaScript function that checks if the current window location is not equal to its parent window location.

**The Two Approaches:**

1. **Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE)**: This approach uses an IIFE, which is a function expression that gets immediately executed when it's defined. In this case, the IIFE is used to define and execute a function in one step.
2. **Normal Function**: This approach defines a regular JavaScript function using the `function` keyword, followed by its execution using the `()` operator.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **IIFE:**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be executed immediately without being assigned to a variable or being used in an expression.
		+ Can create a new scope for variables defined within it.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be harder to read and understand, especially when complex logic is involved.
		+ May not be necessary for simple functions like the one tested here.
2. **Normal Function:**
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to read and understand, as it follows a traditional JavaScript function definition pattern.
		+ Can be more intuitive for developers familiar with procedural programming.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an explicit `()` call to execute the function.

**The Test Case:**

In this test case, both approaches are used to define and execute the same simple function that returns a boolean value. The benchmark measures how many executions per second can be achieved for each approach on a given device platform (Chrome 80 on Linux Desktop).

**Library/Feature Used:**

No external libraries or special JavaScript features are used in this test case.

**Other Alternatives:**

Some other alternatives to consider when defining and executing JavaScript functions include:

* **Arrow Functions**: A more concise syntax for defining single-expression functions.
* **Function Expressions**: Similar to IIFEs, but not necessarily executed immediately.
* **Generator Functions**: Used to create iterables that can be lazily evaluated.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these approaches are usually negligible and only significant in extreme cases. However, understanding the trade-offs between them can help developers make informed decisions when writing efficient JavaScript code!

Related benchmarks:

IIFE vs Normal Fixed 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: iife vs normal

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

iife

normal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated 2 months ago):