Benchmark: Fat Arrow - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

No fat arrow

    function Obj(a, b) {
        this.a = a;
        this.b = b;
    }
    ;
    Obj.prototype.c = function (v) {
        return this.a + v;
    };
    Obj.prototype.d = function (v) {
        return this.a + this.b + vv;
    };
    return Obj;

var obj = new Obj(1, 2);
var e = 1;
var e = obj.c(e) + obj.d(e + 1);

​x
 
​    function Obj(a, b) {        this.a = a;        this.b = b;    }    ;    Obj.prototype.c = function (v) {        return this.a + v;    };    Obj.prototype.d = function (v) {        return this.a + this.b + vv;    };    return Obj;​var obj = new Obj(1, 2);var e = 1;var e = obj.c(e) + obj.d(e + 1);

With fat arrow and let

function makeObj(_a, _b) {
    var a = _a;
    var b = _b;
    return {
        c: function (v) {
            return a + v;
        },
        d: function (v) {
            return a + b + v;
        }
    };
}
var obj = makeObj(1, 2);
var e = 1;
var e = obj.c(e) + obj.d(e + 1);

 
function makeObj(_a, _b) {    var a = _a;    var b = _b;    return {        c: function (v) {            return a + v;        },        d: function (v) {            return a + b + v;        }    };}var obj = makeObj(1, 2);var e = 1;var e = obj.c(e) + obj.d(e + 1);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
No fat arrow
With fat arrow and let

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 6.0.1; Nexus 5 Build/MOB31E) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.124 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 53 on Android 6.0.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
No fat arrow	39536.6 Ops/sec
With fat arrow and let	639608.1 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark is designed to test the performance of JavaScript code using two different syntax approaches: the traditional function declaration (without fat arrows) and the fat arrow syntax with let variables.

Script Preparation Code

In this case, there is no script preparation code provided. This means that the benchmark is testing the execution speed of pre-existing JavaScript code snippets.

Test Cases

There are two test cases:

No Fat Arrow: This test case uses traditional function declarations without fat arrows.
With Fat Arrow and Let: This test case uses the fat arrow syntax with let variables, which is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

Options Compared

The benchmark compares the execution speed of two options:

Traditional function declarations
Fat arrow syntax with let variables

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Traditional Function Declarations

Pros:

Widely supported across older browsers and environments
May be more readable for some developers due to the explicit declaration of functions

Cons:

Generally slower than fat arrow syntax in modern JavaScript engines
Requires more boilerplate code, which can increase overhead

Fat Arrow Syntax with let Variables

Pros:

Faster execution speed compared to traditional function declarations
Allows for concise and readable code
Reduces the need for explicit var, let, or const declarations

Cons:

May not be supported in older browsers or environments (although modern engines generally support it)
Can be less readable for some developers due to the use of implicit function declarations

Library and Special Features

There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that some benchmarks might include third-party libraries or frameworks to test specific features or performance characteristics.

Additionally, neither of these options uses special JavaScript features like async/await, Promises, or Generator functions. If you're interested in testing those, I'd be happy to provide more information!

Other Alternatives

If you want to explore alternative approaches for benchmarking JavaScript code performance, here are a few examples:

V8 Benchmark Suite: This is an official benchmark suite from Google that tests the performance of various JavaScript engines, including V8 (used by Chrome).
SpiderMonkey Benchmarks: Another official benchmark suite from Mozilla that tests the performance of SpiderMonkey, the JavaScript engine used by Firefox.
JavaScript performance benchmarks on GitHub: There are many open-source benchmarking projects available on GitHub that test specific JavaScript features or performance characteristics.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require more expertise and setup compared to MeasureThat.net.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

**Script Preparation Code**

In this case, there is no script preparation code provided. This means that the benchmark is testing the execution speed of pre-existing JavaScript code snippets.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **No Fat Arrow**: This test case uses traditional function declarations without fat arrows.
2. **With Fat Arrow and Let**: This test case uses the fat arrow syntax with `let` variables, which is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution speed of two options:

1. Traditional function declarations
2. Fat arrow syntax with `let` variables

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Traditional Function Declarations**

Pros:

* Widely supported across older browsers and environments
* May be more readable for some developers due to the explicit declaration of functions

Cons:

* Generally slower than fat arrow syntax in modern JavaScript engines
* Requires more boilerplate code, which can increase overhead

**Fat Arrow Syntax with `let` Variables**

Pros:

* Faster execution speed compared to traditional function declarations
* Allows for concise and readable code
* Reduces the need for explicit `var`, `let`, or `const` declarations

Cons:

* May not be supported in older browsers or environments (although modern engines generally support it)
* Can be less readable for some developers due to the use of implicit function declarations

**Library and Special Features**

Additionally, neither of these options uses special JavaScript features like `async/await`, `Promises`, or `Generator functions`. If you're interested in testing those, I'd be happy to provide more information!

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches for benchmarking JavaScript code performance, here are a few examples:

1. **V8 Benchmark Suite**: This is an official benchmark suite from Google that tests the performance of various JavaScript engines, including V8 (used by Chrome).
2. **SpiderMonkey Benchmarks**: Another official benchmark suite from Mozilla that tests the performance of SpiderMonkey, the JavaScript engine used by Firefox.
3. **JavaScript performance benchmarks on GitHub**: There are many open-source benchmarking projects available on GitHub that test specific JavaScript features or performance characteristics.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require more expertise and setup compared to MeasureThat.net.

Related benchmarks:

Fat Arrow (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: No fat arrow vs With fat arrow and let

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

No fat arrow

With fat arrow and let

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):