Benchmark: regular function vs arrow function

Tests:

arrow
const arrowFunction = (name, surname) => console.log(`hi, ${name} ${surname}`); arrowFunction('x', 'y');
regular
function regularFunction (name, surname){ console.log(`hi, ${name} ${surname}`); } regularFunction('x', 'y');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
arrow
regular

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 8.0.0; ASUS_X00RD) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 110 on Android 8.0.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
arrow	17371.1 Ops/sec
regular	16320.2 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 on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares two approaches: regular function syntax and arrow function syntax. The benchmark aims to measure which approach is more efficient in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

In this case, we're comparing:

1. **Regular Function Syntax**: A traditional JavaScript function defined using the `function` keyword.
2. **Arrow Function Syntax**: A concise way of defining functions using the `=>` operator.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

* **Regular Function Syntax**:
	+ Pros:
		- More intuitive for complex logic.
		- Can be used with `this` context binding.
	+ Cons:
		- Generally slower due to the overhead of creating a new scope.
* **Arrow Function Syntax**:
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and readable.
		- Less overhead compared to regular functions.
	+ Cons:
		- Limited functionality, such as `this` context binding.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that some benchmarking libraries like Benchmark.js or jsbench may be used under the hood to create and run these benchmarks.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The test case uses **arrow functions**, which are a concise way of defining small, single-expression functions. Arrow functions were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as a syntax sugar for creating small, anonymous functions.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between regular and arrow function syntax, consider the specific use case:

* Use regular functions when:
	+ You need to bind `this` context.
	+ You require more control over scope.
* Use arrow functions when:
	+ You want a concise and readable code.
	+ You don't need `this` context binding.

**Alternative Approaches**

If you want to explore other alternatives, consider the following:

1. **Async Functions**: Introduced in ES6, async/await allows for more readable asynchronous code.
2. **Generators**: A function that can be paused and resumed during execution, useful for cooperative multitasking.
3. **Proxies**: A way to create dynamic objects with custom behavior.

If you're interested in exploring these alternatives, I'd be happy to provide more information on how to set them up as benchmarks using MeasureThat.net!

Related benchmarks:

regular function vs arrow function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: arrow vs regular

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

arrow

regular

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):