Benchmark: testasd - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<input id="Main_LabelConnectionString" />

Script Preparation code:

var isEmpty = function(el){
  return !$.trim(el.val())
}

Tests:

Function outside
var checkEmpty = function(element){ if (isEmpty(element)) { element.removeClass('active'); } else { element.addClass('active'); } }; $('#Main_LabelConnectionString').on('keyup', function(){ checkEmpty($(this)); });
Code inside
$('#Main_LabelConnectionString').on('keyup', function(){ var $this = $(this); if (isEmpty($this)) { $this.removeClass('active'); } else { $this.addClass('active'); } });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Function outside
Code inside

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark provided by MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches: executing code inside or outside of an event handler (in this case, a `keyup` event on an input element). The benchmark compares the execution time of these two approaches in a controlled environment.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Code Inside**: This approach executes the code directly inside the event handler function. In other words, the code is nested within the event handler.
2. **Function Outside**: This approach defines a separate function that checks whether the input element is empty and then toggles its class accordingly. The event handler calls this function.

**Pros and Cons**

**Code Inside:**

Pros:

* Easier to understand and maintain for developers who are familiar with the code.
* Can be more efficient, as it avoids the overhead of function calls.

Cons:

* Can lead to tighter coupling between the event handler and the code that needs to be executed. This can make the code harder to test and maintain in isolation.
* May not be compatible with all browsers or environments.

**Function Outside:**

Pros:

* Separates the concern of handling events from the logic that needs to be executed, making it easier to test and maintain in isolation.
* Can be more flexible and adaptable to different scenarios.

Cons:

* Requires additional setup and management, as you need to define a separate function and ensure it's called correctly within the event handler.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, the `isEmpty` function is used to check whether an input element is empty. This function is likely part of a utility library or framework that provides common DOM manipulation functions. The `jQuery` library is also being used for DOM manipulation and event handling.

**JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark uses modern JavaScript features such as:

* Arrow functions (e.g., `checkEmpty(element) => { ... }`)
* Template literals (`var $this = $(this);`)
* Function expressions (`function checkEmpty(element) { ... }`)

These features are widely supported in most modern browsers, but may not be compatible with older versions or specific environments.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to this benchmark, here are a few options:

1. **Closures**: Instead of defining a separate function, you could use closures to encapsulate the logic within the event handler.
2. **Event delegation**: You could use event delegation to handle multiple events on a single element, reducing the number of event handlers and potential overhead.
3. **Async/await**: If you want to explore asynchronous execution, you could modify the benchmark to use async/await syntax and test the performance implications.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not necessarily change the fundamental comparison between executing code inside or outside an event handler, but they can provide different insights into JavaScript execution performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/55.0.2883.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 55 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Function outside	287507.9 Ops/sec
Code inside	305265.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testasd (version: 0)

testing

Comparing performance of: Function outside vs Code inside

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Function outside

Code inside

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):