Benchmark: dasdas - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var artifacts = {
  getById: () => []
}

Tests:

simple function
const foo = (artifactId) => artifacts.getById(artifactId); const flatten = (artifacts, artifactId) => { return [ ...foo(artifactId) ] } for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { flatten(artifacts, i) }
higher order function
const getDependencies = (artifactId) => artifacts.getById(artifactId); const createFlattenr = (artifacts) => { return (artifactId) => { return [ ...getDependencies(artifactId) ] } } const flatten = createFlattenr(artifacts) for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { flatten(i) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
simple function
higher order function

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: a simple function and a higher-order function (HOF) that uses currying to create a new function for each iteration.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Simple Function**: A straightforward function that takes an `artifactId` as input and returns an array.
2. **Higher-Order Function (HOF)**: A function that takes an object of artifacts (`artifacts`) and an `artifactId` as input, and returns a new function that can be called with the `artifactId`. This HOF is created by using currying to create a new function for each iteration.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Simple Function**:
	+ Pros: Easy to understand, straightforward implementation.
	+ Cons: Less flexible, may not be suitable for more complex use cases.
* **Higher-Order Function (HOF)**:
	+ Pros: More flexible, can be reused in different contexts, makes the code more modular and maintainable.
	+ Cons: May have a steeper learning curve, more complex implementation.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses a library called `artifacts`. The `artifacts` object is initialized with an empty array as its `getById` method, which is used by both functions.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. It's a straightforward comparison of two function implementations.

**Other Considerations**

When designing benchmarks like this, it's essential to consider the following:

* **Simplification**: The benchmark simplifies the use cases and ignores potential edge cases that might affect performance.
* **Context**: The benchmark is run on a Chrome 86 browser on a Windows 7 desktop. This context might not be representative of all users or environments.
* **Warm-up**: The benchmark doesn't account for warm-up time, which can impact initial results.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

* **Just-In-Time (JIT) Compilation**: Use a JIT compiler like V8 to evaluate the functions and measure performance.
* **Ahead-of-Time (AOT) Compilation**: Compile the JavaScript code to machine code using an AOT compiler like AheadJS or Rollup.
* **GPU Acceleration**: Utilize GPU acceleration for computations-intensive tasks, such as scientific simulations or data processing.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional complexity and may not be suitable for all use cases.

Related benchmarks:

dasdas (version: 0)

higher order function vs simple function perf check

Comparing performance of: simple function vs higher order function

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

simple function

higher order function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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