Benchmark: Arguments vs Objects

Tests:

Arguments
function g(a, b, c) { return a + b + c } for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { g(1,2,3) }
Arguments object
function g(args) { return args.a + args.b + args.c } for (let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { g({a:1,b:2,c:3}) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Arguments
Arguments object

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Arguments	25958.6 Ops/sec
Arguments object	23852.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined as a simple function `g` that takes three arguments (or an object with three properties) and returns their sum. The function is executed 100,000 times in a loop.

**Options Compared**

There are two main approaches compared:

1. **Arguments**: The first test case uses the traditional function call syntax, where the arguments are passed as separate parameters: `g(1,2,3)`. This approach requires the caller to specify each argument individually.
2. **Object**: The second test case uses an object literal with three properties, which is passed as a single argument to the function: `g({a:1,b:2,c:3})`. This approach allows the caller to pass multiple values in a more concise way.

**Pros and Cons**

**Arguments**

* Pros:
	+ Easy to understand and use for callers.
	+ Does not require any additional setup or parsing.
* Cons:
	+ Can be less efficient due to separate parameter passing, which can lead to more function calls and stack overhead.

**Object**

* Pros:
	+ More concise and easier to read for callers who need to pass multiple values.
	+ Can be faster due to reduced number of function calls.
* Cons:
	+ Requires the caller to specify each property individually (e.g., `g({a:1,b:2,c:3})` instead of `g(1,2,3)`).
	+ May require additional setup or parsing on the caller's side.

**Library and Special Features**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library mentioned. However, it's worth noting that using objects as function arguments is a common pattern in JavaScript, particularly when working with frameworks like React or Angular.

**Special JS Feature**

There is no special JavaScript feature explicitly used in this benchmark. The focus is on the basic syntax and performance comparison between traditional argument passing and object-based passing.

**Other Alternatives**

If you'd like to test other approaches, here are a few examples:

* **Array**: Instead of using objects or separate arguments, you could pass an array with three elements: `g([1, 2, 3])`.
* **Spread syntax**: You could use the spread operator (`...`) to pass multiple values as separate arguments: `g(...[1, 2, 3])`. However, this approach is not directly comparable to using objects or separate arguments.
* **Native support for object literals**: Some browsers have native support for object literals and can execute them more efficiently than traditional function calls. You could test this by comparing the execution speed of `g({a:1,b:2,c:3})` against other approaches.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may not be directly relevant to the specific benchmark, but they demonstrate some common variations in JavaScript function call syntax and performance considerations.

Related benchmarks:

Arguments vs Objects (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Arguments vs Arguments object

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Arguments

Arguments object

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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