Benchmark: Callback vs Promise2

Script Preparation code:

function carlosWithPromise() {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    setTimeout(() => {
      return resolve(5);
    });
  })
}

function carlosWithCallback(callback) {
  window.setTimeout(() => {
    callback(100);
  });
}

Tests:

Promise
carlosWithPromise() .then(parametro => { console.log('parametro: ', parametro); });
Callback
carlosWithCallback((param) => console.log('params::', param));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Promise
Callback

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **Callback**: Using a callback function to handle the asynchronous result of `setTimeout()`.
2. **Promise2**: Using a promise (specifically, a `.then()` method) to handle the asynchronous result of `setTimeout()`.

**Script Preparation Code**

Both scripts contain similar code:
```javascript
function carlosWithPromise() {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    setTimeout(() => {
      resolve(5);
    });
  })
}

function carlosWithCallback(callback) {
  window.setTimeout(() => {
    callback(100);
  });
}
```
The main difference lies in how the asynchronous result is handled:

**Callback**: The `carlosWithCallback` function takes a callback function as an argument, which is called when the `setTimeout()` timer expires. In this case, the callback simply logs "params::" followed by the value passed to it (which is always 100).

**Promise2**: The `carlosWithPromise` function returns a promise that resolves to the value 5 after a timeout of 0 milliseconds using `setTimeout()`. The `.then()` method is used to specify what should happen when the promise is resolved.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Callback**:
	* Pros: Simple, lightweight, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Error handling can be cumbersome, and it's easy to forget to cancel promises (e.g., due to memory leaks).
2. **Promise2**:
	* Pros: Provides a more modern, object-oriented way of handling asynchronous code, with built-in support for error handling and cancellation.
	* Cons: Can be overkill for simple use cases, and some older browsers might not support it.

**Library/External dependency**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, `Promise2` uses the native JavaScript Promise API, which is a built-in feature of modern browsers and Node.js.

**Special JS features/syntax**

There's no mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation.

**Other alternatives**

For measuring performance differences between callbacks and promises, you can also consider using other alternatives like:

1. **Closures**: Using a closure to handle the asynchronous result in both approaches.
2. **Async/await**: A more modern way of handling asynchronous code, which is syntactically similar to promises but provides better error handling and readability.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and personal preference.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Promise	1260544.2 Ops/sec
Callback	1386598.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Callback vs Promise2 (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Promise vs Callback

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Promise

Callback

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):