Benchmark: if vs callback vs currying condition comparison ver_2: static handle

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * max);
}

function handle(v) {
  console.log(`${v} >= 50`);
}

function test1(v) {
  v >= 50 && console.log(`${v} >= 50`);
}

function test2(v, fn) {
  v >= 50 && typeof fn === 'function' && fn(v);
}

function test3(v) {
  return (fn) => v >= 50 && typeof fn === 'function' && fn(v);
}

function test3_1(fn) {
  return typeof fn === 'function' ? (v) => v >= 50 && fn(v) : undefined;
}

function test4(v) {
  return (fn) => {
    try {
      v >= 50 && fn(v);
    } catch (e) {
    }
  };
}

Tests:

test1: if
test1(getRandomInt(100));
test2: callback
test2(getRandomInt(100), handle);
test3: currying
test3(getRandomInt(100))(handle);
test3_1: currying reverse
test3_1(handle)(getRandomInt(100));
test4: currying in try...catch
test4(getRandomInt(100))(handle);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1: if
test2: callback
test3: currying
test3_1: currying reverse
test4: currying in try...catch

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1: if	1364704.9 Ops/sec
test2: callback	1230166.2 Ops/sec
test3: currying	1204689.1 Ops/sec
test3_1: currying reverse	1519401.4 Ops/sec
test4: currying in try...catch	1266328.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested on the provided JSON and explain the different approaches.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares the performance of four different ways to handle a condition in JavaScript:

1. **Traditional if statement**: `test1(v)`
2. **Callback function**: `test2(v, fn)`
3. **Currying (function expression)**: `test3(v)` and `test4(v)`
4. **Currying with try-catch block**: `test4_1(fn)`

**Options compared**

* Traditional if statement (`if` statement)
* Callback function (`fn` is a callback, which takes a value as an argument)
* Currying (function expression): `fn` takes two arguments, `v` and another value
* Currying with try-catch block: `try`-`catch` block with a curried function

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Traditional if statement**: Simple and straightforward, but may incur overhead due to the explicit `if` statement.
2. **Callback function**: Allows for more flexibility in handling conditions, but requires creating an additional function object (`fn`) that takes a value as an argument.
3. **Currying (function expression)**: Returns a new function that takes two arguments, which can simplify some condition-handling tasks. However, may require more code to set up and use the curried function correctly.
4. **Currying with try-catch block**: Combines the benefits of traditional if statements with the flexibility of currying, while also providing an additional layer of error handling.

**Library usage**

* `handle` is a library that takes a value (`v`) as an argument and logs whether it's greater than or equal to 50. This library likely provides a simple way to test condition-handling scenarios.
* There are no other libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

None mentioned.

**Benchmark preparation code analysis**

The provided JavaScript code sets up four functions:

1. `getRandomInt(max)` generates a random integer between 0 and `max`.
2. `handle(v)` logs whether `v` is greater than or equal to 50.
3. `test1(v)` uses an if statement with the `v >= 50` condition.
4. `test2(v, fn)` takes a value (`v`) as an argument and calls another function (`fn`) with that value.
5. `test3(v)` returns a curried function that takes two arguments: `v` and another value (not used).
6. `test3_1(fn)` returns a curried function that takes one argument (`v`) if `fn` is a valid function, or undefined otherwise.
7. `test4(v)` returns a function that takes two arguments: `v` and another value (which is ignored).

These functions are used to create the individual benchmark test cases, which call each other with different inputs.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for condition-handling in JavaScript include:

1. Using `&&` or `||` operators directly instead of creating a function.
2. Utilizing logical operators (`===`, `!==`, etc.) directly.
3. Using the ternary operator (`? :`) to simplify some condition-handling tasks.

However, these alternatives may not offer the same level of flexibility and expressiveness as the options compared in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

if vs callback vs currying condition comparison ver_2: static handle (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: test1: if vs test2: callback vs test3: currying vs test3_1: currying reverse vs test4: currying in try...catch

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

test1: if

test2: callback

test3: currying

test3_1: currying reverse

test4: currying in try...catch

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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