Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Arrow function vs normal function
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Arrow function vs Closure function
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
arrowFn = (a, b) => a + b; fn = function(a, b) { return a + b; };
Tests:
Arrow function
arrowFn()
Closure function
fn()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a benchmark test comparing two approaches: arrow functions and traditional functions (also known as "closure functions"). The script preparation code defines two functions: * `arrowFn`: an arrow function that takes two arguments, `a` and `b`, and returns their sum. * `fn`: a traditional function (using the `function` keyword) that also takes two arguments, `a` and `b`, and returns their sum. **Options Compared** The benchmark tests the performance of these two approaches on the same code. Specifically: * The number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) is measured for each browser version. * Both arrow functions and traditional functions are tested to determine which approach is faster. **Pros and Cons** * **Arrow Functions**: These offer several benefits, including: + Concise syntax + No explicit `return` statement required + Reduced memory allocation (no need to create a function scope) + Faster execution (due to reduced overhead in the interpreter) * Traditional Functions (Closure Functions): + More flexible and expressive syntax + Can be used with `this` context binding + Easier to read and maintain, especially for complex logic However, traditional functions also come with some drawbacks: * Larger memory footprint due to function creation * More verbose syntax * Slower execution compared to arrow functions **Library Usage** None of the test cases use any external libraries. The code is self-contained, relying only on JavaScript's built-in features. **Special JS Features/Syntax** No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some features like `let` and `const` (used to declare variables) were introduced in ECMAScript 2015, which might not be supported by all browsers used in the test. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in comparing other approaches or libraries, here are a few alternatives: * **Template literals**: These can offer better performance than concatenation or string interpolation for some use cases. * **Async functions**: If you need to write asynchronous code, async functions might be a better choice than traditional functions. * **Generator functions**: Generator functions can provide more flexibility when dealing with complex iteration logic. For this specific benchmark, though, the comparison between arrow functions and traditional functions provides a clear insight into their relative performance characteristics.
Related benchmarks:
Arrow function vs normal function comparison
Arrow function vs normal function comparison fixed
Arrow function vs normal named function comparison
Arrow function vs normal function comparison 2
Arrow function vs function comparison
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?