Benchmark: Arrow method - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Arrow function
const funct = (a) => a*a; const b = funct(2);
classic function
function funct(a) { return a*a; } const b = funct(2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Arrow function
classic function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is a complex task, and the provided benchmark definition and test cases are a good starting point.

**Benchmark Definition Explanation**

The provided JSON represents a simple JavaScript microbenchmark that tests two approaches:

1. **Arrow Method**: This approach uses an arrow function, which is a concise way to define small, single-purpose functions. The benchmark defines a constant `funct` using the arrow method and then calls it with the argument `2`.
2. **Classic Function**: This approach defines a traditional function using the `function` keyword and then calls it with the same argument `2`.

Both approaches calculate the square of the input value.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

1. **Arrow Method**: Uses an arrow function to define the calculation.
2. **Classic Function**: Uses a traditional function definition.

These two approaches have different characteristics that might impact performance:

* Arrow functions are generally considered faster and more memory-efficient than traditional functions because they don't create a new scope or declare their own `this` context.
* Traditional functions, on the other hand, can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new scope and declaring the function's context.

**Pros and Cons**

Pros of using arrow methods:

* Faster execution
* Reduced memory usage

Cons of using arrow methods:

* Less readable code for some developers
* May not work as expected in certain situations (e.g., when used with `this` or `bind()`)

Pros of using classic functions:

* More readable code
* Can be more flexible and powerful than arrow functions

Cons of using classic functions:

* Slower execution
* Increased memory usage

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect the performance or behavior of the benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

To measure JavaScript performance, you can consider using other benchmarking frameworks and tools, such as:

* V8 Benchmark (a set of benchmarks for measuring V8 JavaScript engine performance)
* SpiderMonkey Benchmark (a set of benchmarks for measuring SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine performance)
* jsPerf (a web-based tool for benchmarking JavaScript code)
* Node.js Benchmark (a set of benchmarks for measuring Node.js performance)

These tools can provide more comprehensive and detailed results, as well as support for different JavaScript engines and platforms.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Arrow function	55507608.0 Ops/sec
classic function	53875240.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Arrow method (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Arrow function vs classic function

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Arrow function

classic function

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):