Benchmark: Arrow function vs closure function

Script Preparation code:

arrowFn = () => this;
closureFn =
    (function() {
        var self = this;
        return function() {
            return self;
        }
    })();

Tests:

Arrow function
arrowFn()
Closure function
closureFn()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Arrow function
Closure 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.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches: Arrow Functions and Closure Functions in JavaScript. The goal is to determine which approach is more efficient.

**Script Preparation Code**

The Script Preparation Code defines the two functions being compared:

* `arrowFn`: An arrow function that returns `this`.
* `closureFn`: A closure function created using an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE) that returns another function, also returning `self`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

1. **Arrow Functions**: A concise way of defining small functions in JavaScript.
2. **Closure Functions**: A more traditional approach to creating functions with access to their surrounding scope.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Arrow Functions**:
	+ Pros: Concise, easy to read, and often faster due to optimizations in modern browsers.
	+ Cons: Can't be used as methods of objects or classes, can't use `this` outside the function body, and may not work with some older browsers.
* **Closure Functions**:
	+ Pros: More flexible, can be used as methods of objects or classes, and works with any JavaScript environment.
	+ Cons: Longer syntax, often slower due to additional overhead.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, some libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js might be used for similar tasks, but that's not relevant to this specific benchmark.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. Both arrow functions and closure functions use standard JavaScript features.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to comparing these two options could include:

* Using `Function` constructors instead of arrow functions
* Using traditional function declarations with a `self` variable
* Comparing using different types of loops (e.g., `for`, `while`) or iterative methods

However, these alternatives are not mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* **Arrow Function**: 7085303.5 executions per second
* **Closure Function**: 6719939.0 executions per second

This suggests that arrow functions are currently faster than closure functions on this specific test case and browser configuration.

Related benchmarks:

Arrow function vs closure function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Arrow function vs Closure function

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Arrow function

Closure 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):