Benchmark: call self vs inline

Script Preparation code:

function f(x) {
  if (arguments.length > 1) {
    for (let i = 0, l = arguments.length; i < l; ++i) {
      f(arguments[i])
    }
  }
  console.log('do stuff', x)
  return 'bye'
}

function g() {
  for (let i = 0, l = arguments.length; i < l; ++i) {
    console.log('do stuff', arguments[i])
  }
  return 'bye'
}

Tests:

call self
f(...Array(100))
inline
g(...Array(100))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
call self
inline

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark tests the performance difference between two approaches: calling a function recursively by passing its arguments as an array (`call self`) versus inlining the function call within the function itself (`inline`).

**Script Preparation Code Analysis**

The script preparation code defines two functions: `f(x)` and `g()`. Both functions are designed to perform some operations on their input `x`, but they differ in how they handle additional arguments.

Function `f(x)` checks if there's more than one argument, and if so, calls itself recursively for each argument. This approach is often referred to as "call by reference" or "call self." However, this can lead to performance issues due to the overhead of recursive function calls.

On the other hand, function `g()` simply iterates over its arguments without calling itself recursively. Instead, it directly processes each argument and then returns. This approach is often referred to as "inline" because the function call is inlined within the original code.

**Options Comparison**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Call Self (f(x))**: Recursively calls `f()` for each additional argument, leading to potential performance issues due to recursive function calls.
2. **Inline (g())**: Processes arguments directly without calling itself recursively, reducing overhead and potentially improving performance.

**Pros and Cons**

**Call Self (f(x)):**

Pros:

* Can handle variable numbers of arguments easily
* Might be more intuitive for some developers

Cons:

* Can lead to performance issues due to recursive function calls
* May cause stack overflow errors if too many recursive calls are made

**Inline (g()):**

Pros:

* Reduces overhead by not creating new function calls
* Potentially improves performance, especially with large numbers of arguments

Cons:

* Requires careful handling of variable numbers of arguments
* Might be less intuitive for some developers

**Library and Special Features**

There is no library used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `arguments` in both functions might not be the most modern or efficient way to handle variable numbers of arguments in JavaScript.

No special features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches or test similar benchmarks, consider the following:

1. **Tail Recursion**: Test a version of `f(x)` that uses tail recursion, which can be optimized by the compiler to avoid stack overflow issues.
2. **Iterative Approach**: Implement an iterative approach for `g()` using a loop instead of a recursive call.
3. **Other Performance Metrics**: Compare performance based on different metrics, such as memory usage or response time.

These alternatives can help you explore different optimization techniques and testing scenarios, potentially leading to better insights into the performance characteristics of your codebase.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/115.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/115.0.1901.203

Browser/OS: Chrome 115 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
call self	1830.7 Ops/sec
inline	1689.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

call self vs inline (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: call self vs inline

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

call self

inline

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):