Benchmark: just promise vs just callback

Tests:

callback
(function(cb){cb();})(()=>{});
promise
(async function(){})();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
callback
promise

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 138 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
callback	222988880.0 Ops/sec
promise	154290128.0 Ops/sec

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 explain what's being tested, compared, and some of the pros and cons associated with each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to handle asynchronous code execution: traditional callbacks and Promises. The goal is to determine which approach performs better in terms of performance.

**Options Compared**

1. **Callbacks**: A callback function is a self-invoking anonymous function that takes another function as an argument, allowing the inner function to be executed after the outer function completes.
2. **Promises**: A Promise is a result object that is used to handle asynchronous operations. It represents a value that may not be available yet.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Callbacks**:
	+ Pros: Simple, widely supported, and easy to implement. However, they can lead to callback hell (nested function calls), making the code harder to read and maintain.
	+ Cons: Can lead to memory leaks if not handled properly.
* **Promises**:
	+ Pros: More modern and efficient than callbacks. Promises handle the asynchronous execution in a more elegant way, making it easier to manage errors and avoid callback hell.
	+ Cons: May require additional setup (e.g., `.then()` methods) and can be less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with promises.

**Library Used**

None explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or HTML preparation code. However, if you were to implement this benchmark using a programming language that supports Promises (like JavaScript), the Promise library would typically include functions like `Promise.resolve()`, `.then()`, and `.catch()` for handling asynchronous operations.

**Special JS Feature**

The benchmark uses an async/await syntax, which is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7). Async/await allows you to write asynchronous code that looks and feels more synchronous. The `async` keyword is used to declare an asynchronous function, and the `await` keyword is used inside these functions to pause execution until a Promise resolves.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to callbacks and Promises, consider:

1. **Cooperative scheduling**: A programming paradigm where tasks voluntarily yield control back to the scheduler at certain points.
2. **Coroutines**: A special type of function that can suspend its own execution and resume later.
3. **Task queues**: A data structure that holds a list of tasks to be executed, which are then processed by an external scheduler or engine.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might require more complex setup and implementation compared to callbacks and Promises.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided Script Preparation Code is empty, which means the benchmark can be run directly without any modifications. The HTML Preparation Code is also empty, suggesting that no additional setup is required for the benchmark to execute.

When running this benchmark, MeasureThat.net will use different browsers (in this case, Chrome Mobile 107) and devices (Mobile Android 11) to execute each test case and report the results based on the number of executions per second.

Related benchmarks:

just promise vs just callback (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: callback vs promise

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

callback

promise

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):