Benchmark: Normal function vs Arrow function comparison

Script Preparation code:

fn = function(a, b) {
    return a + b - 1 * b / a;
};
afn = (a, b) => a + b - 1 * b / a;

Tests:

Normal function
fn();
Arrow function
afn();
Normal function (0,0)
fn(0,0);
Arrow function (0,0)
afn(0,0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Normal function
Arrow function
Normal function (0,0)
Arrow function (0,0)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Normal function	491833952.0 Ops/sec
Arrow function	530799040.0 Ops/sec
Normal function (0,0)	512148704.0 Ops/sec
Arrow function (0,0)	509850592.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring performance differences between JavaScript functions is an essential aspect of optimizing code. The provided benchmark measures the execution speed of two types of functions: traditional functions (defined using the `function` keyword) and arrow functions.

**Traditional Functions vs Arrow Functions**

In this benchmark, we have a simple mathematical function that takes two numbers as input and returns their sum minus 1 times the product of the two numbers divided by their sum. The function is defined in two ways:

*   Traditional function: `fn = function(a, b) { return a + b - 1 * b / a; }`
*   Arrow function: `afn = (a, b) => a + b - 1 * b / a`

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution speed of these two functions:

1.  Traditional Function (`fn`)
2.  Arrow Function (`afn`)

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

*   **Traditional Functions**
    *   Pros:
        *   Easier to read and understand, especially for complex logic.
        *   Can be more intuitive for developers familiar with traditional function syntax.
    *   Cons:
        *   May result in slower execution due to the overhead of function creation.
*   **Arrow Functions**
    *   Pros:
        *   More concise and expressive, making code easier to write and read.
        *   Can improve performance by reducing function creation overhead.
    *   Cons:
        *   May be less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with arrow functions.

**Library**

None of the provided test cases uses any external libraries. The benchmark only relies on JavaScript's built-in functionality.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark utilizes a feature called **block scope**, which is introduced by arrow functions in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This feature allows variables defined within an arrow function to be accessed from outside the function, even if they are not explicitly returned. The traditional function does not utilize block scope.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance could include:

1.  **V8 Benchmark Suite**: A set of benchmarks developed by Google that tests various aspects of V8's performance.
2.  **jsPerf**: A web-based tool for comparing the performance of different JavaScript implementations and libraries.
3.  **BenchMarkU**: A benchmarking tool specifically designed to compare the performance of WebAssembly (WASM) implementations.

These alternatives might provide a more comprehensive view of JavaScript performance, especially when considering various use cases and edge cases.

In summary, this benchmark provides insight into the performance differences between traditional functions and arrow functions in JavaScript. By using block scope and concise syntax, arrow functions can potentially offer improved performance over traditional functions. However, the choice between these two approaches ultimately depends on the specific needs of your project and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Normal function vs Arrow function comparison (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Normal function vs Arrow function vs Normal function (0,0) vs Arrow function (0,0)

Created: 2 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Normal function

Arrow function

Normal function (0,0)

Arrow function (0,0)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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