Benchmark: raw cost of requestAnimationFrame

HTML Preparation code:


<script>
  var timeout
  var yes = () => 'yes'
</script>

Tests:

requestAnimationFrame
window.requestAnimationFrame(yes)
cancelAnimationFrame
window.cancelAnimationFrame(1)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
requestAnimationFrame
cancelAnimationFrame

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the raw cost of two specific JavaScript functions: `requestAnimationFrame` (raf) and `cancelAnimationFrame`. The test case is designed to isolate the execution time of these functions, allowing users to compare their performance across different browsers and devices.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code provided is:
```javascript
var timeout = var yes = () => 'yes';
```
This code creates a simple function `yes` that returns the string `'yes'`. The variable `timeout` is declared but not used in this context. The purpose of this code snippet is to ensure that the JavaScript engine initializes its internal state properly before running the benchmark.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code provided is:
```html
<script>
  var timeout
  var yes = () => 'yes'
</script>
```
This code is similar to the script preparation code but contains only the variable declarations and the `yes` function definition. This allows the test to focus on the execution time of the functions without introducing additional complexity.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **requestAnimationFrame**: This function schedules a callback to be executed at the next available painting opportunity (usually 16ms or 60Hz, depending on the system). The raf function is designed to provide a consistent and efficient way to update the DOM.
2. **cancelAnimationFrame**: This function cancels an earlier scheduled animation frame. It's used to cancel animations that are no longer needed or to release resources.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **requestAnimationFrame**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a consistent and efficient way to update the DOM.
		+ Allows for smooth animation and updates at 60Hz (on most systems).
	* Cons:
		+ Can introduce additional overhead due to the scheduling mechanism.
		+ May require more complex handling of cancellation and cleanup.
2. **cancelAnimationFrame**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a way to cancel animations or other operations that are no longer needed.
		+ Reduces overhead by releasing resources when necessary.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires additional code to manage cancellations and cleanup.
		+ May not provide the same level of consistency as raf.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The focus is on measuring the raw execution time of the `requestAnimationFrame` and `cancelAnimationFrame` functions themselves.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are two special features being tested:

1. **`var` keyword**: The `var` keyword is used to declare variables in this benchmark. This is a legacy syntax that's still supported in modern JavaScript engines.
2. **Arrow function (`=>`)**: The arrow function `yes = () => 'yes'` is used to define the `yes` function. Arrow functions are a concise way to create small, anonymous functions and were introduced in ECMAScript 2015.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or optimizations for this benchmark, consider the following:

1. **Using Web Workers**: You could use Web Workers to offload computationally expensive tasks to separate threads, reducing the impact of the benchmark on the main thread.
2. **Profiling and Optimizing**: Use profiling tools like Chrome DevTools' Performance tab or Firefox's Timeline to identify performance bottlenecks in your application and optimize those areas.
3. **Using a Profiler Library**: Libraries like Benchmark.js or jsperf provide features for writing and running benchmarks, as well as providing additional analysis and optimization suggestions.

Keep in mind that these alternatives are more complex and might not be suitable for simple benchmarks like the one provided.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/102.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 102 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
requestAnimationFrame	1738087.8 Ops/sec
cancelAnimationFrame	5360175.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

raw cost of requestAnimationFrame (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: requestAnimationFrame vs cancelAnimationFrame

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

requestAnimationFrame

cancelAnimationFrame

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):