Benchmark: call with value vs call with object

Script Preparation code:

object = {cd: 10, dd: 16, pp: 24, aa: 10 }

Tests:

pass values
function f(cd, dd, pp, aa) { return cd + dd + pp + aa } f(object.cd, object.dd, object.pp, object.aa)
pass object
function f({cd, dd, pp, aa}) { return cd + dd + pp + aa } f(object)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pass values
pass object

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 JSON and explain what's being tested in the benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases:

1. **Pass values**: The function `f` takes four arguments with named properties (`cd`, `dd`, `pp`, `aa`) and returns their sum.
2. **Pass object**: The function `f` takes an object as a single argument with the same properties (`cd`, `dd`, `pp`, `aa`) and returns their sum.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an object `object` with four properties:

```javascript
object = {cd: 10, dd: 16, pp: 24, aa: 10 }
```

This object is used in both test cases as the argument to function `f`.

**Html Preparation Code**

There is no HTML preparation code provided.

**Options being compared**

In this benchmark, two options are compared:

1. **Passing values**: The function `f` receives four separate arguments (`cd`, `dd`, `pp`, `aa`) and uses them directly in the calculation.
2. **Passing object**: The function `f` receives a single object argument with the same properties as before, but without explicit assignment to individual variables.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Passing values**:
	* Pros: More straightforward and easier to understand.
	* Cons: May lead to slower execution times due to the extra work involved in accessing properties by name.
2. **Passing object**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient, as the property access can be optimized by the JavaScript engine.
	* Cons: Requires a more explicit understanding of how objects are handled in JavaScript.

**Library usage**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in this benchmark.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark utilizes the concept of object destructuring (introduced in ECMAScript 2015), which allows for concise and expressive function calls. The `object` argument in the second test case can be passed directly to function `f`, like this:

```javascript
f({cd, dd, pp, aa})
```

This syntax is a key feature of modern JavaScript.

**Other alternatives**

For this specific benchmark, there are no alternative approaches that would fundamentally change the nature of the test. However, if you were looking for variations on this theme, you could consider:

1. **Passing an array**: Instead of passing an object, you could pass an array with separate elements for each property.
2. **Using a different function call syntax**: You could experiment with other function call styles, such as using `apply()` or `bind()`, to see how they affect performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be representative of real-world use cases, and the primary goal of this benchmark is likely to compare the performance of passing values versus passing an object.

Related benchmarks:

call with value vs call with object (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pass values vs pass object

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pass values

pass object

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):