Benchmark: inline functions vs hoisted

Script Preparation code:

function render ( a ) {
  return a + 'b';
}

Tests:

inline
function render ( a ) { return a + 'b'; } render('a');
hoisted
render('a');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
inline
hoisted

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches to JavaScript function execution: inline functions and hoisted functions. The test case uses an example function `render(a)` that returns the string concatenation of `a` and `'b'`.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

Let's break down the Benchmark Definition JSON:

* `Name`: "inline functions vs hoisted"
* `Description`: null (no description provided)
* `Script Preparation Code`: The code for preparing the JavaScript script, which in this case is a function definition with a single statement that calls another function `render('a')`.
* `Html Preparation Code`: null (no HTML preparation code provided)

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Inline**: This test case has the same JavaScript code as the Script Preparation Code, but without the `function` declaration. The purpose of this test is to measure how fast the browser can execute a function call directly inlined with its definition.
2. **Hoisted**: This test case has only the line `render('a');`, which means the function call is executed before it's defined. The goal here is to measure how fast the browser can optimize the function call and execute it before looking up the function declaration.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Inline functions: The function definition and its calls are combined into a single block, which might be faster because there's less overhead in declaring and defining functions.
* Hoisted functions: Functions are declared separately from their calls, but the browser can optimize the call to execute before looking up the function declaration.

**Pros and Cons**

**Inline Functions**

Pros:

* Less overhead in declaring and defining functions
* Might be faster due to reduced overhead

Cons:

* Can lead to code bloat if there are many inline functions
* May make debugging more difficult if functions are not properly defined

**Hoisted Functions**

Pros:

* Allows for separate declaration of functions, making them easier to debug and reuse
* Can help with code organization and readability

Cons:

* Requires the browser to optimize function calls before looking up their declarations, which might introduce additional overhead

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no library or special JavaScript feature being used in this benchmark. It's a simple example of comparing inline functions with hoisted functions.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for testing JavaScript performance could include:

* Testing array operations (e.g., indexing, mapping, filtering)
* Comparing the performance of different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey, JavaScriptCore)
* Evaluating the impact of specific JavaScript features on performance (e.g., async/await, promises)
* Testing the performance of different data structures (e.g., arrays, objects)

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 129 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
inline	23164376.0 Ops/sec
hoisted	4382898.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

inline functions vs hoisted (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: inline vs hoisted

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

inline

hoisted

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):