Benchmark: higher order function vs simple function perf checkasdasda sdfdfgasdasa sdsdvsddv

Script Preparation code:

var artifacts = {
    getById: () => [Math.random()]
}

  const getDependencies1 = (artifactId) => artifacts.getById(artifactId);

function flatten(artifactId) {
  
    return [
        ...getDependencies1(artifactId)
    ]
}

function createFlattenr(artifacts){
    const getDependencies2 = (artifactId) => artifacts.getById(artifactId);
    return (artifactId) => {
        return [
            ...getDependencies2(artifactId)
        ]
    }
}

Tests:

simple function
for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { flatten( i) }
higher order function
const f = createFlattenr(artifacts) for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { f(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 definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **Simple Function**: A straightforward function `flatten` that takes an input `i`, returns an array with a single element, and then returns this array.
2. **Higher-Order Function (HOF)**: A more complex function `createFlattenr` that returns another function `f`. The returned function `f` takes an input `i`, calls `getDependencies1` to retrieve dependencies, flattens the array of dependencies, and returns the flattened array.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* **Simple Function**: Directly calls the `flatten` function with different inputs.
* **Higher-Order Function (HOF)**: Calls the returned function `f` from `createFlattenr` with different inputs, which in turn calls `getDependencies1`.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Simple Function**:
	+ Pros: Easier to understand and implement.
	+ Cons: May not be as flexible or reusable as HOF.
* **Higher-Order Function (HOF)**:
	+ Pros: Can be more modular, reusable, and flexible than simple functions.
	+ Cons: Can introduce additional overhead due to function call and closure creation.

**Library**

The benchmark uses a JavaScript object `artifacts` with a single property `getById`, which returns an array of random values. This object is used as a dependency injection mechanism for the HOF approach.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ES6+ JavaScript. However, it relies on closure creation and function call overhead, which can be optimized with various techniques (e.g., memoization, caching).

**Other Alternatives**

If the developers want to explore alternative approaches, they could consider:

* **Lambda Functions**: Instead of using `createFlattenr`, they could use lambda functions (`(i) => ...`) for a more concise and expressive implementation.
* **Array Methods**: They could rewrite the `flatten` function to use built-in array methods (e.g., `map()`, `reduce()`) instead of explicit loops.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide significant performance improvements or changes to the benchmark results.

Related benchmarks:

higher order function vs simple function perf checkasdasda sdfdfgasdasa sdsdvsddv (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):