Benchmark: React const vs function 2024 (swapped order)

HTML Preparation code:

<script crossorigin src="https://unpkg.com/react@18/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script crossorigin src="https://unpkg.com/react-dom@18/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<div id="dest"></div>

Tests:

Function
function Hello({toWhat}){ return React.createElement('div', null, `Hello ${toWhat}`); } ReactDOM.render( React.createElement(Hello, {toWhat: 'Worldd'}, null), document.getElementById('dest') );
Const
const Hello = ({toWhat}) => React.createElement('div', null, `Hello ${toWhat}`); ReactDOM.render( React.createElement(Hello, {toWhat: 'Worldd'}, null), document.getElementById('dest') );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Function
Const

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition JSON:**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark with two main components:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This section is empty, which means that no additional code needs to be executed before running the benchmarks.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This section provides the HTML template for the test cases:
```html
<script crossorigin src="https://unpkg.com/react@18/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script crossorigin src="https://unpkg.com/react-dom@18/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<div id="dest"></div>
```
This code includes two external JavaScript libraries: React and React DOM, which are used for building user interfaces. The `<div>` element is used as a container for the test content.

**Individual Test Cases:**

The benchmark definition includes two test cases:

1. **Function**: This test case uses an arrow function to define the `Hello` component:
```javascript
function Hello({toWhat}) {
  return React.createElement('div', null, `Hello ${toWhat}`);
}

ReactDOM.render(
  React.createElement(Hello, {toWhat: 'Worldd'}, null),
  document.getElementById('dest')
);
```
2. **Const**: This test case uses a constant function to define the `Hello` component:
```javascript
const Hello = ({toWhat}) => {
  return React.createElement('div', null, `Hello ${toWhat}`);
};

ReactDOM.render(
  React.createElement(Hello, {toWhat: 'Worldd'}, null),
  document.getElementById('dest')
);
```
In both cases, the `Hello` component is rendered with the text "Hello Worldd" inside a `<div>` element.

**Library and Purpose:**

The two libraries used in this benchmark are:

1. **React**: A JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
2. **ReactDOM**: A library that provides DOM-related functionality for React applications.

Both libraries are widely used in web development, particularly for building complex user interfaces.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. Both test cases use standard JavaScript syntax.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches:**

In this case, there's only one variable being compared between the two test cases:

* Using a constant function (`const`) vs using an arrow function (`function`).

The pros and cons of each approach are:

**Const (Constant Function):**

Pros:

* Can be cached by some JavaScript engines, potentially improving performance.
* May have better support for certain optimization techniques.

Cons:

* Some older browsers might not support the `const` keyword or might not optimize it as well.
* It's a relatively recent syntax feature, so its compatibility and optimizations might vary across different browsers and engines.

**Function (Arrow Function):**

Pros:

* Wide support across modern browsers and JavaScript engines.
* Simplifies code and makes it more concise.

Cons:

* Might not be cached or optimized by some engines.
* The `function` keyword is still widely supported, but arrow functions are generally preferred for new development.

In the context of this benchmark, both test cases use standard syntax features. There's no special library or JavaScript feature being used that requires specific handling or optimization techniques.

**Other Alternatives:**

Some alternative approaches to compare in a similar benchmark might include:

* Using `var` instead of `const` for the function declaration.
* Comparing different rendering libraries, such as Vue.js or Angular.
* Using asynchronous programming models, like Promises or async/await.
* Examining performance differences with different optimization techniques, such as minification or code splitting.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches might not be directly relevant to this specific benchmark and would require additional modifications to the test cases.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Function	55195.4 Ops/sec
Const	67188.9 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

React const vs function 2024 (swapped order) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Function vs Const

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Function

Const

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):