Benchmark: deux array filter fn named vs anon

HTML Preparation code:

..

Script Preparation code:

  var ka = ['id', 'token', 'family', 'grade', 'hex'];
  var k = 'token';    
  var fl = function(e) {
      return e !== k
    };

    var fna_n = function() {
      return ka.filter(fl)
    };

 var fna_a = function() {
      return ka.filter(e => e !== k)
    };

Tests:

fn named
fna_n();
fn anon
fna_a();

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to filter an array in JavaScript:

1. **Named function`fna_n()`**: This approach defines a named function `fl` that takes an element as an argument and returns `true` if it's not equal to the string `'token'`. The filtered array is then obtained by calling the `filter()` method on the original array, passing the `fl` function as the callback.
2. **Anonymous function using arrow syntax`fna_a()`**: This approach defines an anonymous function that takes an element as an argument and returns `true` if it's not equal to the string `'token'`. The filtered array is then obtained by calling the `filter()` method on the original array, passing the anonymous function as the callback.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

1. **Named function**: Using a named function to define the filtering logic.
2. **Anonymous function with arrow syntax**: Using an anonymous function with arrow syntax (`=>`) to define the filtering logic.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Named function`fna_n()`**:
	+ Pros: Easier to read and maintain, especially for complex filtering logic.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of function creation and lookups.
* **Anonymous function with arrow syntax`fna_a()`**:
	+ Pros: Faster execution, as there is no overhead of function creation and lookups.
	+ Cons: Less readable and maintainable, especially for complex filtering logic.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, the `filter()` method is a built-in JavaScript array method that uses an internal implementation to perform filtering.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in this benchmark. The examples use standard JavaScript syntax and do not rely on any advanced features like async/await, Promises, or Web Workers.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other options, here are a few:

1. **Using `map()` instead of `filter()`**: If the filtering logic only changes the elements in some way, using `map()` might be a more efficient alternative.
2. **Using `every()` or `some()`**: These methods can be used to filter arrays, but they may have different performance characteristics compared to `filter()`.
3. **Implementing filtering logic manually**: You could implement your own filtering logic using loops and conditional statements, which would bypass the use of built-in array methods.

Keep in mind that the specific choice of implementation will depend on the requirements of your application and the trade-offs you're willing to make between readability, maintainability, and performance.

Related benchmarks:

deux 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):