Benchmark: Testing anonymous functions

Script Preparation code:

var arrs = Array(1000).fill(0).map(x => Array(1000).fill(0).map(x => Math.random()))

Tests:

Normal Sort
for (var arr of arrs) { arr.sort((a, b) => a - b); }
Reuse function
var sortFunc = (a, b) => a - b; for (var arr of arrs) { arr.sort(sortFunc); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Normal Sort
Reuse function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark!

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, where users can create and run tests on various aspects of the language. Let's break down what is being tested:

**Benchmark Definition**: The top-level object in the JSON represents a benchmark definition, which includes metadata such as the name, description, and preparation code.

* `Script Preparation Code`: This line of code creates an array `arrs` with 1000 elements, each containing another array with 1000 elements filled with random numbers. The purpose of this code is to create a large dataset that will be used in the benchmark.
* `Html Preparation Code`: This field is empty, which means no additional HTML preparation is required for the test.

**Individual Test Cases**: The "Benchmark Definition" JSON contains two individual test cases:

1. **Normal Sort**: This test case uses a traditional `for` loop to iterate over the `arrs` array and sort each inner array using the built-in `sort()` method with a comparison function `(a, b) => a - b`.
2. **Reuse Function**: In this test case, an anonymous function is defined as `var sortFunc = (a, b) => a - b;`, which performs the same comparison operation as before. However, instead of defining a new function on each iteration, the existing `sortFunc` function is reused for all iterations.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of these approaches:

* **Normal Sort**:
	+ Pros: Simple to implement, widely supported by browsers.
	+ Cons: May have performance overhead due to repeated function calls (lookups).
* **Reuse Function**:
	+ Pros: Reduces function call overhead, can lead to better performance in some cases.
	+ Cons: Requires defining an anonymous function upfront, which might not be desirable for all test cases.

Other considerations:

* The benchmark uses the `Array.prototype.sort()` method with a comparison function, which is a common use case. However, this approach may have variations in implementation across browsers (e.g., using `compare()` instead of `(a, b) => a - b`).
* There's no consideration for other sorting algorithms or data structures.

**Library usage**: None of the test cases rely on external libraries. The built-in JavaScript functions and data types are used throughout the benchmark.

**Special JS features/syntax**: The benchmark uses arrow functions (`(a, b) => a - b`) to define small, anonymous functions. This is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

Alternative approaches:

* **Alternative sorting algorithms**: Other sorting algorithms like quicksort or mergesort could be used as test cases.
* **Data structures**: Using different data structures, such as linked lists or trees, could provide additional insights into performance and complexity trade-offs.

To further improve the benchmark, you might consider adding more test cases that cover different aspects of JavaScript, such as:

* Performance comparisons between different array methods (e.g., `Array.prototype.indexOf()`, `Array.prototype.includes()`).
* Benchmarks for specific use cases, like searching or filtering arrays.
* Test cases for edge cases, like empty or nearly-empty arrays.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/84.0.4147.105 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 84 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Normal Sort	42.5 Ops/sec
Reuse function	41.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Testing anonymous functions (version: 0)

Anonymous functions

Comparing performance of: Normal Sort vs Reuse function

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Normal Sort

Reuse function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):