Benchmark: rest parameters vs arguments 3

Script Preparation code:

function h1(...args) {
    return args.map((x)=>x)
}

function h2(args) {
    return args.map((x)=>x)
}

Tests:

rest arguments
const els = h1(1);
array parameter
const els = h1([1]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
rest arguments
array parameter

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.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The provided JSON defines a JavaScript microbenchmark named "rest parameters vs arguments 3". The script preparation code consists of two functions, `h1` and `h2`, which both use either rest parameters (`...args`) or traditional function arguments (`args`). The benchmark aims to compare the performance of these two approaches.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Rest Parameters (`...args`)**: This syntax allows a function to accept an arbitrary number of arguments, which are collected into an array called `args`.
2. **Traditional Function Arguments (`args`)**: In this approach, each argument is passed separately, and the function expects a specific number of arguments.

**Pros and Cons:**

**Rest Parameters (```...args```) Pros:

* More concise and expressive syntax
* Allows for easy handling of variable-length argument lists
* Can reduce boilerplate code

Cons:

* May be less readable or maintainable for complex functions with many arguments
* In some older browsers, the behavior might not be well-defined (e.g., `undefined` is passed as the first argument)

**Traditional Function Arguments (`args``)** Pros:

* More explicit and familiar syntax
* Often preferred in codebases that require strict adherence to function signature definitions

Cons:

* More verbose and less concise than rest parameters
* Can lead to more boilerplate code

**Other Considerations:**

The benchmark does not test any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, closures, or scope binding.

**Library Usage:**

There is no library usage in the provided code. The functions `h1` and `h2` are standalone definitions without referencing any external libraries.

**Benchmark Preparation Code:**

The script preparation code defines two functions, `h1` and `h2`, which both use either rest parameters or traditional function arguments to perform a simple mapping operation on an array of values. The purpose of these functions is to test the performance difference between rest parameters and traditional function arguments.

**Individual Test Cases:**

The benchmark consists of two individual test cases:

1. **"rest arguments"`**: This test case calls `h1` with no arguments, which should be equivalent to calling it with an empty array (`[]`) in terms of performance.
2. **"array parameter"`**: This test case passes a single-element array `[1]` as the argument to `h1`. The benchmark is interested in comparing this approach to passing separate values (`1`) as traditional function arguments.

**Latest Benchmark Result:**

The latest benchmark result shows that both rest parameters and traditional function arguments perform similarly well, with Chrome 111 producing around 298 million executions per second for "rest arguments" and 289 million executions per second for "array parameter". This suggests that, in this specific test case, the performance difference between these two approaches is negligible.

Related benchmarks:

rest parameters vs arguments 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: rest arguments vs array parameter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

rest arguments

array parameter

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):