Benchmark: third 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
};

Tests:

fn named
ka.filter(fl);
fn anon
ka.filter(e => e !== k);

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 and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to filter an array in JavaScript: using a named function (`fl`) vs using an anonymous function (an arrow function with a single line).

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **`fn named`**: This test case uses the named function `fl(e)` to filter the array `ka`. The function is defined as follows:
```javascript
var fl = function(e) {
  return e !== k;
}
```
2. **`fn anon`**: This test case uses an anonymous arrow function to filter the same array `ka`. The function is defined as follows:
```javascript
ka.filter(e => e !== k);
```
**Library**

In this benchmark, the `filter()` method of arrays is used in both test cases. The `filter()` method takes a callback function as its second argument and calls it for each element in the array.

**Pros and Cons of Named Function vs Anonymous Function**

Using a named function (`fl`) has some advantages:

* **Readability**: The code is more readable, as the purpose of the function is clearly stated.
* **Debugging**: It's easier to debug named functions, as they can be inspected in the debugger.

However, using named functions also has some disadvantages:

* **Performance overhead**: Named functions may incur a performance overhead due to the need for a lookup table (a cache of function calls) to find the correct implementation.
* **Code size**: The code will be larger due to the need to define and name the function explicitly.

Using anonymous arrow functions, on the other hand, has some advantages:

* **Performance**: Anonymous functions are typically faster, as they do not incur the overhead of a lookup table.
* **Code size**: Code is smaller and more concise.

However, using anonymous functions also has some disadvantages:

* **Readability**: The code may be less readable for those who are not familiar with arrow functions.
* **Debugging**: It can be harder to debug anonymous functions, as they cannot be inspected in the debugger like named functions.

**Other Alternatives**

There are other ways to filter an array in JavaScript, such as using `map()` and `every()`, or using a library like Lodash. However, these alternatives are not being compared in this benchmark.

In summary, this benchmark compares two approaches to filtering arrays: using named functions vs using anonymous arrow functions. The results suggest that the anonymous function approach is faster, but may be less readable for some developers.

Related benchmarks:

third 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):