Benchmark: Arrow function vs normal function comparison repeat

Script Preparation code:

arrowFn = (a, b) => a + b;
fn = function(a, b) {
    return a + b;
};

Tests:

Arrow function
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { arrowFn() }
Normal function
for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { fn() }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Arrow function
Normal 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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches: using an arrow function versus using a traditional (non-arrow) function to perform simple arithmetic operations.

**Script Preparation Code**

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 that also takes two arguments, `a` and `b`, and returns their sum.

Both functions are identical in terms of logic, but differ in syntax. The arrow function uses the concise syntax for defining small, anonymous functions (`=>`), while the traditional function uses the more verbose syntax for defining named functions (`function()`).

**Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **Arrow Function**: The test case repeatedly calls the `arrowFn()` function 10,000 times.
2. **Normal Function**: The test case repeatedly calls the `fn()` function 10,000 times.

Both test cases are identical in terms of the input parameters and the operation being performed (adding two numbers together).

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, no external libraries are used. The functions being compared are standalone JavaScript functions.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The arrow function syntax (`=>`) is a special feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows for concise and expressive function definitions. However, it's not essential to the functionality of this benchmark, as the traditional function with `function()` is still performing the same operation.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

1. **Arrow Functions**:
	* Pros: Concise syntax, fewer lines of code, easier to read.
	* Cons: Less explicit control over scope and binding, potentially less compatible with older browsers or environments.
2. **Traditional Functions (with `function()`)**:
	* Pros: More explicit control over scope and binding, more compatible with older browsers or environments.
	* Cons: Longer syntax, more lines of code.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to modify this benchmark to compare other approaches, you could consider:

1. Using different function constructors (e.g., `Function()`, `eval()`)
2. Implementing the functions using different programming paradigms (e.g., loop-based vs recursive)
3. Comparing performance with and without memoization or caching
4. Using different browsers or environments to test compatibility

These modifications would require additional changes to the script preparation code, HTML preparation code, and benchmark setup.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

Arrow function vs normal function comparison repeat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Arrow function vs Normal function

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Arrow function

Normal function

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):