Benchmark: Return true vs empty body

Script Preparation code:

var notDefined;
var defined = 1;

var emptyFunc = function() {};
var trueFunc = function() { return true; }
var undefinedFunc = function() { return undefined; }
var nullFunc = function() { return null; }
var notDefinedFunc = function() { return notDefined; }
var definedFunc = function() { return defined; }
var staticFunc = function() { return 1; }
var localUndefinedFunc = (function() {
  var notDefinedAgain;
  
  return function() {
  	return notDefinedAgain;
  }
})();

Tests:

emptyFunc
emptyFunc();
trueFunc
trueFunc();
undefinedFunc
undefinedFunc();
nullFunc
nullFunc();
notDefinedFunc
notDefinedFunc();
definedFunc
definedFunc();
staticFunc
staticFunc();
localUndefinedFunc
localUndefinedFunc();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
emptyFunc
trueFunc
undefinedFunc
nullFunc
notDefinedFunc
definedFunc
staticFunc
localUndefinedFunc

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript functions is crucial for optimizing code and identifying potential bottlenecks.

The provided benchmark definition json represents a test case that measures the execution time of various JavaScript functions, specifically those that return true, undefined, null, or defined values. The script preparation code includes several function definitions:

1. `emptyFunc`: Returns no value (undefined).
2. `trueFunc`: Always returns `true`.
3. `undefinedFunc`: Returns `undefined`.
4. `nullFunc`: Always returns `null`.
5. `notDefinedFunc`: Returns the undefined variable `notDefined`.
6. `definedFunc`: Returns the defined variable `defined` (which is assigned the value 1).
7. `staticFunc`: Always returns a fixed value, 1.
8. `localUndefinedFunc`: A self-invoking anonymous function that returns the undefined variable `notDefinedAgain`.

Now, let's discuss the options being compared:

**Option 1: Direct Function Call**

In this approach, each function is called directly without any modifications. This option tests how fast the JavaScript engine can execute a simple function call.

Pros: Simple and straightforward.
Cons: May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where functions are often used in loops or nested calls.

**Option 2: Modified Functions (e.g., `emptyFunc() = () => {}`)**

In this approach, each function is modified to return no value by using an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE). This option tests how fast the JavaScript engine can execute a function that returns nothing.

Pros: More accurate representation of real-world scenarios where functions are used as callbacks or event handlers.
Cons: May add overhead due to the IIFE syntax.

**Option 3: Self-Invoking Anonymous Functions**

In this approach, each function is wrapped in a self-invoking anonymous function (e.g., `localUndefinedFunc() = (function() { ... })()`). This option tests how fast the JavaScript engine can execute a function that returns undefined or null.

Pros: More accurate representation of real-world scenarios where functions are used as callbacks or event handlers.
Cons: May add overhead due to the self-invoking syntax.

The benchmark result shows that `emptyFunc` and `trueFunc` are executed faster than the other functions, which is expected since they return no value or a fixed value. The slower execution times of `undefinedFunc`, `nullFunc`, `notDefinedFunc`, and `definedFunc` suggest that these functions may be causing some overhead due to their complex behavior.

Other considerations:

* **Library usage**: Some tests use libraries like jQuery, which can add additional overhead.
* **JS feature support**: The benchmark result does not mention any special JavaScript features or syntax being used. This is likely because the test cases do not rely on advanced language features.

Alternative benchmarks:

* Measure the performance of functions using different data types (e.g., numbers, strings, objects) to see how it affects execution time.
* Test the performance of functions under different conditions (e.g., with a large input size, with asynchronous operations).
* Compare the performance of JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) or frameworks (e.g., React, Angular).

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Mac OS X 10.12.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
emptyFunc	10841400.0 Ops/sec
trueFunc	10722474.0 Ops/sec
undefinedFunc	3680793.8 Ops/sec
nullFunc	10700489.0 Ops/sec
notDefinedFunc	5760560.5 Ops/sec
definedFunc	4178719.8 Ops/sec
staticFunc	10651853.0 Ops/sec
localUndefinedFunc	10714090.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Return true vs empty body (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: emptyFunc vs trueFunc vs undefinedFunc vs nullFunc vs notDefinedFunc vs definedFunc vs staticFunc vs localUndefinedFunc

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

emptyFunc

trueFunc

undefinedFunc

nullFunc

notDefinedFunc

definedFunc

staticFunc

localUndefinedFunc

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):