Benchmark: array filter fn named vs anon

HTML Preparation code:

..

Tests:

fn named
const ka = ['id', 'token', 'family', 'grade', 'hex']; const k = 'token'; const fl = function(e) { return e !== k }; const fna = function() { return ka.filter(fl) }; fna();
fn anon
const ka = ['id', 'token', 'family', 'grade', 'hex']; const k = 'token'; const fna = function() { return ka.filter(e => e !== k) }; fna();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
fn named
fn anon

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 benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark defines two test cases:

1. `array filter fn named`: This test case is testing the performance of an array filter function where the filtering condition is defined as a separate, named function (`fl`).
2. `array filter fn anon`: This test case is testing the performance of an array filter function where the filtering condition is defined inline as an anonymous function.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. **Named function**: The filtering condition is defined in a separate, named function (`fl`).
2. **Anonymous function**: The filtering condition is defined inline as an anonymous function (e.g., `e => e !== k`).

**Pros and Cons**

**Named Function Approach**

Pros:

* Easier to read and maintain code
* Can be reused in other parts of the program
* Better error handling, as errors in the filtering function are less likely to propagate

Cons:

* May introduce overhead due to function lookup and execution

**Anonymous Function Approach**

Pros:

* Compact code with fewer lines
* No additional function declaration is required

Cons:

* Less readable and maintainable code
* Errors may be more difficult to detect, as they occur within the inline function

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark does not test the performance of different JavaScript engines or versions.
* It also does not consider other factors that might affect performance, such as array size, data type, or caching.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, the use of arrow functions (`e => e !== k`) indicates support for a relatively modern JavaScript feature.

**Special JS Feature: Arrow Functions**

Arrow functions were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as a concise way to define small, single-expression functions. They have since become widely adopted and are supported by most modern browsers and JavaScript engines.

In this benchmark, the use of arrow functions allows for a more compact code snippet, making it easier to read and write inline filter conditions.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches or variations on these tests, here are some ideas:

* Test the performance of different filtering algorithms (e.g., `Array.prototype.filter()`, `filter()` using a custom iterator, etc.).
* Compare the performance of named functions vs. anonymous functions in other contexts, such as event handlers or callback functions.
* Include additional variations, like testing the performance of filter conditions with more complex logic (e.g., `if-else` statements) or testing with large datasets.

These alternatives can help provide a more comprehensive understanding of JavaScript's filtering capabilities and performance characteristics.

Related benchmarks:

array filter fn named vs anon (version: 0)

array filter named vs anon

Comparing performance of: fn named vs fn anon

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

fn named

fn anon

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):