Benchmark: Promise vs Async 2

Tests:

Async
function retPromise() { return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) { resolve({hi: 3}) }) } async function go() { const b = await rePromise() return b } async function main() { const t = await go() return t } main()
Promisey
function retPromise() { return new Promise(function(resolve, reject) { resolve({hi: 3}) }) } function go() { return rePromise() } async function main() { const t = await go() return t } main()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Async
Promisey

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its individual test cases.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark, titled "Promise vs Async 2", compares two approaches: using `async/await` with a Promise (`Async`) versus using Promises without `async/await` (`Promisey`). This comparison aims to evaluate which approach performs better in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Async**: This approach uses the `async/await` syntax with a Promise. The `async` keyword is used to define an asynchronous function, and `await` is used to pause the execution of the function until a Promise is resolved or rejected.
2. **Promisey**: This approach uses Promises without the `async/await` syntax. It manually handles the Promise resolution by using the `.then()` method to execute the callback function after the Promise has resolved.

**Pros and Cons**

**Async:**

Pros:

* Readability and maintainability are improved due to the use of `await`, which makes the code easier to understand.
* Error handling is more robust, as any errors that occur in the `try` block will be propagated to the surrounding code using `throw`.

Cons:

* Performance might be slightly slower due to the overhead of creating a new stack frame for each asynchronous operation.

**Promisey:**

Pros:

* Performance can be better, as there is no overhead from creating a new stack frame.
* Control over the Promise resolution process can be more precise.

Cons:

* Code readability and maintainability suffer, as the code becomes more verbose and harder to understand due to the manual handling of Promises.

**Library/Libraries Used**

None are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the `Promise` class is being used implicitly, as it's a built-in JavaScript object for creating and managing Promises.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The use of `async/await` and Promises is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7). This syntax allows for more concise and readable asynchronous code. The `.then()` method, which is used in the "Promisey" approach, is also a part of the ES6 Promises API.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to writing asynchronous code, consider:

1. **Callbacks**: Instead of using `async/await` or Promises, callbacks can be used to handle asynchronous operations. However, this approach can lead to "callback hell" and is generally considered less readable.
2. **Promises with `.then()` only**: Another alternative is to use Promises without `async/await`, but still relying on the `.then()` method for error handling and continuation. This approach provides a balance between performance and readability.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or readable as using `async/await` with Promises, which has become the de facto standard for writing asynchronous JavaScript code.

Related benchmarks:

Promise vs Async 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Async vs Promisey

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Async

Promisey

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):