Benchmark: promise vs callback

Tests:

async
(async() => { await true; })();
callback
((next) => {next()})(() => {});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
async
callback

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 21 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/147.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 147 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
async	14407387.0 Ops/sec
callback	250435248.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for comparing the performance of asynchronous code (async/await) versus traditional callback-based code. The test cases are:

1. `async`
2. `callback`

These test cases aim to measure the execution speed difference between using async/await and callback functions.

**Options being compared**

In this benchmark, two approaches are being compared:

1. **Async/Await**: This approach uses asynchronous functions with the `await` keyword to suspend the execution of the function until a promise is resolved or rejected.
2. **Callback-based**: This approach uses callbacks as a way to handle asynchronous operations.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of each approach:

### Async/Await

Pros:

* Easier to read and write code
* Reduces callback hell and nesting issues
* More concise and expressive

Cons:

* May introduce additional overhead due to the creation and management of promises
* Requires careful handling of errors using try-catch blocks or async/await syntax

### Callback-based

Pros:

* Can be more lightweight and efficient, as callbacks don't create new objects or contexts
* Suitable for older browsers that may not support async/await

Cons:

* More verbose and prone to callback hell (nested callbacks)
* Difficult to read and maintain large codebases with many callbacks

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, there is no library being used explicitly. However, it's worth noting that MeasureThat.net often uses libraries like `jsbench` or ` benchmark.js` internally to execute the benchmarks.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The test cases use async/await syntax, which is a relatively modern feature in JavaScript. Async/await was introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7) and allows for writing asynchronous code that's more concise and readable.

For those who might not be familiar with async/await:

* The `async` keyword is used to define an asynchronous function.
* The `await` keyword is used inside an async function to suspend its execution until a promise is resolved or rejected.
* The parentheses (`()`) after the `async` keyword are optional, but they help distinguish between named and anonymous functions.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative benchmarking tools or libraries for JavaScript performance testing, here are a few options:

1. **jsbench**: A popular benchmarking library that provides a simple and easy-to-use API.
2. **benchmark.js**: A lightweight benchmarking library that supports a wide range of test cases and features.
3. **TestComplete**: A commercial benchmarking tool that's specifically designed for web application performance testing.

These alternatives might offer different features, syntax, or configurations that can suit your specific needs.

Related benchmarks:

promise vs callback (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: async vs callback

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

async

callback

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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