Benchmark: nested function - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

not nested
a(1); function a(x) { return b(x + 1); } function b(x) { return c(x + 1); } function c(x) { return x + 1; }
nested
a(1); function a(x) { return b(x + 1); function b(x) { return c(x + 1); function c(x) { return x + 1; } } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
not nested
nested

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
not nested	10356456.0 Ops/sec
nested	18075920.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark data.

**What is being tested?**

The test cases are designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **Non-nested function calls**: The first approach, denoted by "not nested", tests the execution time of a single function call without nesting.
2. **Nested function calls**: The second approach, denoted by "nested", tests the execution time of a nested function call.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Simple function call**: A direct call to `b(x + 1)` without any nesting.
2. **Nested function call**: A call to `a(1)`, which in turn calls `b(x + 1)`, and then `c(x + 1)` is called, resulting in a nested call chain.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

**Non-nested function calls (Simple)**

Pros:

* Easy to understand and predict the execution flow.
* Fewer stack frames, which can result in faster execution.

Cons:

* The interpreter may perform additional checks or optimizations that could impact performance.
* The test may not accurately reflect real-world scenarios where functions are often nested.

**Nested function calls (Complex)**

Pros:

* More realistic representation of real-world code, where functions are often nested.
* Can better capture the complexity of modern JavaScript codebases.

Cons:

* Increases the risk of stack overflows or other issues due to excessive nesting.
* May be slower due to additional overhead from the interpreter.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some libraries like `lodash` or ` underscore.js` might be used in real-world codebases to simplify function calls and reduce nesting.

**Special JavaScript features/syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided data. The focus is solely on measuring the performance difference between two functional programming approaches.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to add more test cases, some alternative approaches could be:

* **Closure-based function calls**: Using closures (e.g., `var outer = (function() { var inner = (function() { ... }()); return inner; });`) instead of traditional function calls.
* **Function expressions vs. functions declared with 'let' or 'const'**: Comparing the performance of function declarations (`function a(x) { ... }`) versus function expressions (`var a = function(x) { ... };`).
* **Arrow functions vs. traditional functions**: Measuring the performance difference between arrow functions (e.g., `a(x) => { ... }`) and traditional functions with `function` keywords.

Keep in mind that adding new test cases should be done with caution, as it's essential to ensure that the additional tests accurately represent real-world scenarios and don't introduce unnecessary complexity or overhead.

Related benchmarks:

nested function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: not nested vs nested

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

not nested

nested

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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