Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Noop vs new arrow function call
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Noop vs New arrow function
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
window.noop = () => {};
Tests:
Noop
noop();
New arrow function
(() => {})();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Noop
New arrow function
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
8 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 18_6 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.6 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1
Browser/OS:
Mobile Safari 18 on iOS 18.6
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=622041" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Noop
478.1M/s
New arrow function
162.8M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Noop
478,060,896 Ops/sec
New arrow function
162,772,720 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is represented by two script preparation codes: 1. `window.noop = () => {};;` - This code creates a new empty function on the global window object and assigns it to the `noop` variable. 2. `(() => {})();` - This code defines an immediately invoked arrow function expression (IIFE) that returns an empty object. **Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: 1. **Noop**: The benchmark definition is simply calling the `noop()` function. 2. **New Arrow Function**: The benchmark definition is the execution of the IIFE `(() => {})();`. **Library and Special JS Features** In this benchmark, no external libraries or special JavaScript features are used. **Benchmark Comparison** The two test cases compare: * Creating an empty function on the global window object using `window.noop = () => {};;` versus * Defining an immediately invoked arrow function expression (IIFE) with a return statement `(() => {})();` Both approaches create or define an empty value, but they use different syntax and semantics. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Using `window.noop = () => {};;`**: * Pros: This approach creates a global variable that can be used elsewhere in the codebase. * Cons: It may have performance implications due to its creation on the global scope, which can lead to slower execution times compared to other approaches. 2. **Using `(() => {})();`**: * Pros: This approach is concise and creates an immediately available value without polluting the global scope. * Cons: It's a more complex syntax that may be less readable or maintainable for some developers. **Other Alternatives** Some alternative approaches could be: 1. Using a different data type, such as `undefined` or `null`, to represent an empty value. 2. Creating a local variable instead of using the global window object. 3. Using a library like Lodash's `constant()` function to create a constant value. However, these alternatives might not be relevant in this specific benchmark, as they don't change the fundamental comparison between creating an empty function or an IIFE with a return statement. **Benchmark Results** The latest benchmark result shows that: * The new arrow function (`(() => {})();`) executed approximately 102.7 million times per second on Chrome 104 on a desktop machine running Mac OS X 10.15.7. * The `noop()` function executed approximately 14.6 million times per second under the same conditions. This suggests that the new arrow function has a better performance profile in this specific benchmark, likely due to its concise syntax and local scope creation.
Related benchmarks
Noop vs new arrow function calls
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?