Benchmark: Inline return, newline undefined return

Tests:

Inline return
let b = { 'a': 1 }; function a (mutable) { return mutable.a = 5; }; a(b);
Newline return
let b = { 'a': 1 }; function a (mutable) { mutable.a = 5; return; } a(b);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Inline return
Newline return

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_1) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/13.0.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 13 on Mac OS X 10.15.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Inline return	64137064.0 Ops/sec
Newline return	63379612.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases that measure the performance difference between inline returns and newline-defined returns in JavaScript. Specifically, they test how browsers handle function return statements with or without a newline character.

**Options compared:**

Two options are compared:

1. **Inline return**: In this approach, the return statement is placed directly within the `function` body, without any explicit newline character.
2. **Newline return**: In this approach, an explicit newline character (`\n`) is added before the return statement.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Inline return**:
	+ Pros: This approach can lead to more compact and efficient code, as it eliminates the need for a separate line or block.
	+ Cons: Some browsers might optimize away the inline return statement due to its simplicity, potentially leading to performance regressions.
* **Newline return**:
	+ Pros: This approach ensures that the return statement is parsed correctly by all browsers, including those with strict syntax checking.
	+ Cons: It results in slightly longer and less compact code.

**Library/Functionality used:**

None of the test cases use a specific library. However, the `let` keyword and object literals (e.g., `{ 'a': 1 }`) are part of the ECMAScript standard, so they don't require any external libraries.

**JavaScript feature/Syntax:**

The test cases demonstrate the use of implicit function return values in JavaScript. In both cases, when the function is called, it will implicitly return `undefined` if no value is specified. This behavior is specific to JavaScript and is not universally supported by other programming languages.

**Other alternatives:**

To explore different approaches or measure alternative scenarios, you could consider modifying the benchmark code to:

* Test with different browsers or versions
* Measure performance differences between inline returns vs. return statements without newline characters (e.g., semicolons or tabs)
* Compare performance with different data structures (e.g., arrays, objects) instead of simple variables
* Investigate the impact of optimizing techniques like minification or compression on JavaScript execution speed

Keep in mind that these modifications should be done with caution and thorough testing to ensure accurate results.

Related benchmarks:

Inline return, newline undefined return (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Inline return vs Newline return

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Inline return

Newline return

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):