Benchmark: Arrowfunc - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Arrow func
(() => 1 + 2)()
Classic
(function() { return 1 + 2 })()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Arrow func
Classic

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the information provided and explain what's being tested in the benchmark, the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that represents the JavaScript microbenchmark. It has four properties:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark.
* `Description`: An optional description of the benchmark (in this case, null).
* `Script Preparation Code`: An optional code snippet that's executed before running the benchmark (in this case, null).
* `Html Preparation Code`: An optional HTML code snippet that's executed before running the benchmark (in this case, null).

In this specific benchmark definition, there is no script preparation or HTML preparation code.

**Individual Test Cases**

The test cases are defined in an array of JSON objects. Each object has two properties:

* `Benchmark Definition`: The actual JavaScript code that's being tested.
* `Test Name`: An optional name for the test case (in this case, "Arrow func" and "Classic").

There are two test cases:

1. `(() => 1 + 2)()` - This is an example of a modern JavaScript arrow function. Arrow functions are a shorthand way of defining small, single-expression functions.
2. `(function() { return 1 + 2 })()` - This is an example of a traditional JavaScript function, defined using the `function` keyword.

**Comparison**

The two test cases are being compared to determine which one performs better in terms of execution speed. The "Arrow func" test case uses an arrow function, while the "Classic" test case uses a traditional function definition.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Arrow Functions**: Pros:
	+ More concise and readable code
	+ Can be defined inline, eliminating the need for a separate function declaration
	+ Less verbose than traditional functions
* Cons:
	+ May have performance implications due to the use of `this` and closures (although modern engines are optimized for arrow functions)
	+ Not supported in older browsers or environments that don't support ES6+
* **Traditional Functions**: Pros:
	+ More mature and widely supported, with better browser engine optimization
	+ Can be used in environments where arrow functions aren't supported
	+ Easier to understand and debug for some developers
* Cons:
	+ Less concise and readable code compared to arrow functions
	+ Requires a separate function declaration, which can increase verbosity

**Other Considerations**

The choice between using an arrow function or a traditional function depends on the specific use case and the target audience. If performance is a top priority and the code needs to be concise, arrow functions might be a better choice. However, if readability and maintainability are more important, traditional functions might be a better option.

**Library**

There doesn't appear to be any library being used in these test cases. The JavaScript engine itself will execute the provided function definitions.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

No special features or syntax are being tested in this benchmark. Both arrow functions and traditional functions are standard parts of modern JavaScript.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance include:

* V8 Benchmark (Chrome's built-in benchmarking tool)
* SpiderMonkey Benchmark (Firefox's built-in benchmarking tool)
* jsPerf
* Benchmark.js
* Webperf
* perf-benchmark

These tools can be used to create and run benchmarks, but they often have different APIs and requirements compared to MeasureThat.net.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/69.0.3497.100 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 69 on Mac OS X 10.12.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Arrow func	743112768.0 Ops/sec
Classic	734253504.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Arrowfunc (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Arrow func vs Classic

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Arrow func

Classic

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):