Benchmark: Arrow function vs normal function comparison fixed

Script Preparation code:

arrowFn = (a, b) => a + b;
function fn(a, b) {
    return a + b;
};

Tests:

Arrow function
arrowFn()
Normal function
fn()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Arrow function
Normal 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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The website uses a JSON object to define a benchmark, which is a set of instructions for running a test on multiple JavaScript functions. In this case, the benchmark compares the performance of two types of functions:

1. **Arrow function**: An arrow function is a concise way of defining small, single-purpose functions in JavaScript. It has a shorter syntax than traditional functions and can be used to create simple, one-line functions.
2. **Normal function** (also known as a regular function): A normal function is the traditional way of defining a reusable block of code in JavaScript.

The benchmark definition includes:

* `Script Preparation Code`: This is the JavaScript code that sets up the two functions being compared. It defines an arrow function `arrowFn` and a normal function `fn`, both taking two arguments `a` and `b`.
* `Html Preparation Code`: There is no HTML preparation code, which means the benchmark doesn't involve any DOM-related interactions or events.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Arrow function**: Using an arrow function to define a small, simple function.
2. **Normal function**: Using a traditional function definition (i.e., `function` keyword) for a similar task.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

* **Arrow Function**:
	+ Pros:
		- Concise syntax
		- Can be more readable for simple functions
		- Less boilerplate code
	+ Cons:
		- Limited flexibility in terms of scope and binding
		- May not be suitable for complex, multiple-line functions
* **Normal Function**:
	+ Pros:
		- More flexible and powerful than arrow functions
		- Can handle more complex logic and multiple lines
		- Easier to understand and debug
	+ Cons:
		- Longer syntax
		- More boilerplate code

In general, arrow functions are suitable for simple, one-line functions, while normal functions are better suited for more complex tasks.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Function Scope**: Both arrow functions and normal functions have different scopes. Arrow functions inherit the scope of their surrounding function, while normal functions have their own explicit scope.
* **Binding**: In arrow functions, `this` refers to the context in which the function is called, whereas in normal functions, `this` refers to the global object (usually the `window` object in a browser).
* **Caching and Optimization**: Some browsers may optimize or cache certain types of functions, including arrow functions. This can affect performance.

**Libraries and Special JS Features:**

There are no libraries mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript engines (e.g., SpiderMonkey in Firefox) use a concept called "lexical scoping" to resolve `this` contexts for arrow functions.

**Test Cases:**

The two test cases compare the performance of the two functions:

1. **Arrow Function**: The first test case measures the execution time of calling an arrow function.
2. **Normal Function**: The second test case measures the execution time of calling a normal function.

These tests can help determine which type of function is more efficient in terms of execution speed.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/99.0.4844.51 Safari/537.36 Edg/99.0.1150.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 99 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Arrow function	5614225.5 Ops/sec
Normal function	8987238.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Arrow function vs normal function comparison fixed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Arrow function vs Normal function

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Arrow function

Normal 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):