Benchmark: lodash noop vs new function

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

noop
var a = _.noop a()
new function
var a = () => {} a()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
noop
new function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case created using MeasureThat.net. The test compares the performance of two approaches: creating a new function using an arrow function (`=>`) versus using the `lodash.noop` function.

**Options compared:**

1. **Creating a new function using an arrow function (`=>`)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Concise and readable syntax
		+ Can be useful when defining small, one-time-use functions
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as performant as traditional function creation methods due to the overhead of creating a new scope
2. **Using `lodash.noop`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and lightweight since it's a pre-compiled, optimized function
		+ Reduces boilerplate code and improves readability
	* Cons:
		+ May require an additional dependency (the `lodash` library)
		+ Can be less readable for some developers

**Other considerations:**

* The test only measures the performance of these two specific approaches, without considering other factors like function name length or usage patterns.
* The benchmark assumes that the functions being created are identical in terms of behavior and parameters.

**Library (lodash.noop)**:

The `lodash.noop` function is a lightweight, pre-compiled function that does nothing when called. It's designed to be used as a no-op placeholder function, reducing the need for boilerplate code or additional function creation overhead.

**Special JS feature (Arrow Functions)**:

Arrow functions are a shorthand syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They allow creating small, single-expression functions with a concise syntax. In this benchmark, arrow functions are compared to traditional function creation methods.

The use of arrow functions is generally considered a good practice for simple, one-time-use functions due to their readability and conciseness. However, performance-wise, they might not be the best choice for every situation.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives for creating small functions could include:

* Using `Function.prototype` to create an anonymous function
* Utilizing other utility libraries or frameworks that provide lightweight, pre-compiled functions (like Ramda or Immer)
* Implementing a custom, performance-optimized function creation mechanism specific to the use case

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
noop	13464436.0 Ops/sec
new function	151485984.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash noop vs new function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: noop vs new function

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

noop

new function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):