Benchmark: unnested - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

unnested
const fna = (a, b) => a + b * 2; const fnb = (a) => fna(a, a + 1); fnb(28765)
nested
const nfnb = (a) => { const nfna = (a, b) => a + b * 2; return nfna(a, a + 1); }; nfnb(28765)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
unnested
nested

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript code is crucial in understanding how different approaches affect execution speed. Let's dive into what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: "unnested" and "nested". The benchmarks are designed to test the execution speed of a simple mathematical expression involving function calls.

**What is being compared?**

In both cases, the code uses a simple arithmetic operation involving function calls. The main difference lies in how these functions are defined and called:

1. **Unnested**: In this approach, the `fna` function directly adds the result of two operations: `a` and `b * 2`. Then, another function `fnb` is called with the result of `a + 1`, which is then passed to `fna`.
2. **Nested**: In this approach, a new function `nfb` wraps the entire calculation in an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE). This IIFE contains another function `nfna` that performs the same calculation as `fna`. The result of `nfna` is then passed to the outer `nfb` function.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Unnested**:
	* Pros: Simpler, potentially faster execution due to fewer function calls.
	* Cons: May introduce unnecessary overhead if the functions are called multiple times within the codebase.
2. **Nested**:
	* Pros: Encapsulates the calculation in a self-contained scope, reducing global variable pollution and potential side effects.
	* Cons: May result in slower execution due to additional function calls.

Other considerations:

* Both approaches use simple arithmetic operations, which should be fast for most modern JavaScript engines.
* The benchmarks do not account for any external dependencies or caching mechanisms that might impact performance.

**Library usage:**

There are no libraries used in these benchmarks. They appear to be vanilla JavaScript examples.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

None mentioned explicitly in the provided code snippets, but it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net tests a wide range of modern JavaScript features and syntax, including async/await, promises, and more.

**Alternative approaches:**

To optimize this specific calculation, alternative approaches could include:

* Using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler or Ahead-Of-Time (AOT) compilation to optimize the bytecode.
* Leveraging SIMD instructions for parallelization.
* Implementing memoization or caching to store intermediate results and avoid redundant calculations.

These optimizations would likely require more extensive modifications to the codebase, but could lead to significant performance gains in specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

unnested (version: 0)

unnested

Comparing performance of: unnested vs nested

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result