Benchmark: return undefined nested function

HTML Preparation code:

<script>
function ret1(){return undefined;}
function ret2(){return void 0;}
function ret3(){return;}
function ret4(){return ret(()=>{ret(ret1)})}
function ret5(){return ret(()=>{ret(ret2)})}
function ret6(){return ret(()=>{ret(ret3)})}
function ret(fn){return fn()}
</script>

Tests:

return undefined;
ret4();
return void 0;
ret5();
return
ret6();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
return undefined;
return void 0;
return

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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a microbenchmark test on the MeasureThat.net website, designed to compare the performance of different approaches in JavaScript. The benchmark tests three scenarios: `return`, `return void 0;`, and `return undefined;`.

**Options Being Compared**

1. **`return`**: This option tests the execution time of simply returning a value without any further processing.
2. **`return void 0;`**: This option tests the execution time of returning an object with a `null` property (`void 0` is equivalent to `null` in JavaScript).
3. **`return undefined;`**: This option tests the execution time of returning `undefined`, which is the absence of any value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`return`**: This approach is simple and straightforward, but it may incur additional overhead due to function call resolution and return value processing.
	* Pros: Easy to implement, minimal overhead.
	* Cons: May not be optimal for performance-critical code.
2. **`return void 0;`**: This approach returns an object with a `null` property, which is a common pattern in JavaScript.
	* Pros: More efficient than returning `undefined`, as it avoids the need to handle the absence of a value.
	* Cons: May not be as intuitive for some developers, as `void 0` can be confusing.
3. **`return undefined;`**: This approach returns the absence of any value, which is often used when no return value is expected.
	* Pros: Simple and clear, indicating that no value should be returned.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to handling the absence of a value.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, none of the test cases explicitly use a library. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may provide built-in optimizations or special handling for certain return types (e.g., returning `undefined` vs. returning an object with `null` property).

**Special JS Features and Syntax**

This benchmark does not utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the basic concepts of function calls, returns, and type handling.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to modify this benchmark to compare other approaches, some alternatives could include:

* Returning a simple primitive value (e.g., `0`, `true`, etc.) instead of an object.
* Using `NaN` (Not a Number) or `Infinity` as return values.
* Implementing custom return types using JavaScript classes or other advanced data structures.
* Comparing the performance of different return type annotations or decorators in modern JavaScript frameworks.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant modifications to the benchmark code and script preparation.

Related benchmarks:

return undefined nested function (version: 0)

compare 'return undefined;', 'return void 0;' and 'return'

Comparing performance of: return undefined; vs return void 0; vs return

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

return undefined;

return void 0;

return

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):