Benchmark: IIFE vs Normal function

Script Preparation code:

var iifeFn = (() => {
  return window.location !== window.parent.location;
})();

var normalFn = () => {
  return window.location !== window.parent.location;
};

Tests:

iifeFn
console.log(iifeFn)
normalFn
console.log(normalFn())

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
iifeFn
normalFn

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition defines two functions: `iifeFn` and `normalFn`. Both functions return whether the current page is not inside an iframe (`window.location !== window.parent.location`). The main difference between them lies in how they are defined:

* `iifeFn`: It's a self-invoking anonymous function (IIFE), which is immediately executed when it's defined.
* `normalFn`: It's a traditional function, defined with the `function` keyword.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **IIFE vs Traditional Function**: This comparison tests how performance differs between using an IIFE and a traditional function to define small functions like this one.
2. **Execution Order**: Although not explicitly stated in the JSON, it's implied that the test will run both `iifeFn` and `normalFn` independently to see which executes faster.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **IIFE**:
	* Pros: 
		+ Immediately executed when defined (no need for a separate execution step).
		+ Can be used as an expression, like `iifeFn()`.
	* Cons: 
		+ Can lead to variable hoisting issues if not properly scoped.
2. **Traditional Function**:
	* Pros: 
		+ Easier to read and understand (especially for complex logic).
		+ More flexible in terms of function scoping and naming conventions.
	* Cons: 
		+ Requires a separate execution step, which can lead to overhead.

**Other Considerations**

When testing small functions like these, additional factors like caching, optimization, or browser-specific behavior may also come into play. The test results should help identify whether one approach consistently outperforms the other in specific scenarios.

**Library Usage (none)**

Neither `iifeFn` nor `normalFn` use any external libraries. They are simple functions that don't rely on third-party dependencies.

**Special JS Features/Syntax (none)**

There's no explicit usage of special JavaScript features like async/await, generators, or arrow function shorthand in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

For comparing function definitions and execution performance:

1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: Tools like Benchmark.js, Benchmark SUIT, or Google's V8's built-in benchmarking APIs can provide more robust testing capabilities.
2. **JIT (Just-In-Time) compilers**: Some browsers, like SpiderMonkey in Firefox, have JIT compilers that optimize code at runtime.

By understanding the approach and factors being tested, developers can better analyze and apply these results to their own development process.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:98.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/98.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 98 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
iifeFn	80023.0 Ops/sec
normalFn	73118.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

IIFE vs Normal function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: iifeFn vs normalFn

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

iifeFn

normalFn

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):