Benchmark: Empty function - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

function noop() {}

Tests:

Dynamic
(function() {})();
Static
noop();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Dynamic
Static

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'll break down the provided benchmark definition, test cases, and latest benchmark results to help you understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents a simple JavaScript function. It consists of two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This is a small piece of JavaScript code that is executed before running the actual benchmark:
   ```javascript
function noop() {}
```
   The purpose of this code is to create an empty function called `noop`, which does nothing when invoked. This is done to ensure that the benchmark is not affected by any side effects in the script preparation code.

2. **Html Preparation Code**: Since there is no HTML preparation code, it's likely that the benchmark only cares about the JavaScript execution time and doesn't need to consider the rendering or layout of the page.

**Test Cases:**

There are two test cases:

1. **Static**: This test case uses a hardcoded call to the `noop` function:
   ```javascript
noop();
```
   The purpose of this test is to measure the execution time of calling an empty function directly, without any dynamic binding or invocation.

2. **Dynamic**: This test case uses a self-invoking anonymous function (IIFE) to invoke the `noop` function:
   ```
(function() {})();
```
   The purpose of this test is to measure the execution time of creating and invoking a dynamic function using an IIFE.

**Library:**

There doesn't seem to be any library being used in these benchmark definitions. However, it's possible that some library functions might be called indirectly through the `noop` function or IIFE.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches:**

- **Static Approach (noop();)**:
  - Pros: 
    * Simpler code
    * More predictable behavior
  - Cons:
    * May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where functions are called dynamically

- **Dynamic Approach (self-invoking anonymous function;)**:
  * Pros:
    + More representative of real-world JavaScript usage
    + Can handle dynamic bindings and invocations
  * Cons:
    + More complex code
    + Might be slower due to the overhead of creating a new scope and executing the IIFE

**Other Considerations:**

- **Minification and Compression**: The benchmark results are likely to be affected by minification and compression techniques used in production environments. Minifiers often remove whitespace, comments, and unnecessary characters, which can impact execution times.

- **Browser and Platform Variations**: The benchmark results may vary across different browsers, platforms, and devices due to differences in JavaScript engines, hardware architectures, and operating systems.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance could include:

- Using a more complex benchmark scenario that incorporates real-world libraries or functions.
- Utilizing a profiling tool to measure execution times at the bytecode level.
- Employing a benchmarking framework like Benchmark.js or js-benchmark.
- Considering the impact of caching, memoization, and other optimization techniques on JavaScript performance.

These alternatives can provide a more comprehensive understanding of JavaScript performance characteristics under various conditions.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/118.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 118 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Dynamic	733270784.0 Ops/sec
Static	745449472.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Empty function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Dynamic vs Static

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Dynamic

Static

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):