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 undefinedFunc2 = function() { return; }
var notDefinedFunc = function() { return notDefined; }
var definedFunc = function() { return defined; }
var staticFunc = function() { return 1; }

Tests:

emptyFunc
emptyFunc();
trueFunc
trueFunc();
undefinedFunc
undefinedFunc();
nullFunc
nullFunc();
notDefinedFunc
notDefinedFunc();
definedFunc
definedFunc();
staticFunc
staticFunc();
undefinedFunc2
undefinedFunc2();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
emptyFunc
trueFunc
undefinedFunc
nullFunc
notDefinedFunc
definedFunc
staticFunc
undefinedFunc2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the test cases and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains information about the script to be executed. In this case, the script consists of eight functions:

1. `emptyFunc`: an empty function
2. `trueFunc`: a function that returns `true`
3. `undefinedFunc`: a function that returns `undefined`
4. `nullFunc`: a function that returns `null`
5. `notDefinedFunc`: a function that attempts to return `notDefined` (which is not defined)
6. `definedFunc`: a function that returns the value of `defined`, which is set to 1
7. `staticFunc`: a function that returns a static value, 1

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution performance of each function across different browsers and devices.

* **Functions**: Each function has its own execution time, which is measured in executions per second (FPS).
* **Browsers**: The benchmark runs on Chrome 53, which is the same browser across all test cases.
* **Devices**: The benchmark tests on a "Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_0" device, which means it's running on a specific Mac OS X version.

**Pros and Cons**

The pros of this approach are:

* Easy to understand: each function has its own execution time, making it easy to compare results.
* Focus on individual functions: the benchmark highlights performance differences between functions, which can be useful for optimization purposes.

However, there are some cons:

* Limited scope: the benchmark only compares the performance of these specific functions across a single browser and device.
* No consideration for other factors: execution time is the only metric measured, ignoring other important aspects like memory usage or code complexity.

**Other Considerations**

One notable aspect of this benchmark is that it uses `undefined` and `notDefined` in a way that's not standard JavaScript. In most cases, attempting to return an undefined value would result in a runtime error. However, in this benchmark, the functions seem to ignore this error and simply return `undefined`.

**Alternatives**

If you were to modify or extend this benchmark, some alternatives to consider:

* Add more browsers and devices to increase the sample size.
* Incorporate additional metrics, such as memory usage or code complexity, to provide a more comprehensive view of performance.
* Use different function patterns or scenarios to make the benchmark more representative of real-world use cases.
* Consider using other benchmarking libraries or frameworks that offer more features and customization options.

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/53.0.2785.143 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	9115253.0 Ops/sec
trueFunc	9184596.0 Ops/sec
undefinedFunc	3184576.8 Ops/sec
nullFunc	8736526.0 Ops/sec
notDefinedFunc	4454140.0 Ops/sec
definedFunc	3438160.5 Ops/sec
staticFunc	9053834.0 Ops/sec
undefinedFunc2	9253216.0 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 undefinedFunc2

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

emptyFunc

trueFunc

undefinedFunc

nullFunc

notDefinedFunc

definedFunc

staticFunc

undefinedFunc2

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):