Benchmark: promise vs callback 123

Script Preparation code:

function promises() {
  return Promise.resolve(123)
}
function callbacks(cb) {
  return cb(123)
}

Tests:

async
promises()
callback
callbacks((_) => {})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
async
callback

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/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
async	86863040.0 Ops/sec
callback	149096384.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided benchmark definition represents two test cases: `promises()` and `callbacks((_) => {})`. These test cases are designed to compare the performance of asynchronous programming approaches using Promises and callbacks, respectively.

**What is tested?**

In this benchmark, we're testing the execution speed of a simple asynchronous function. The functions being compared:

1. `promises()`: Takes no arguments and returns a resolved Promise with the value 123.
2. `callbacks((_) => {})`: Takes an argument (a callback function) that receives the value 123 as an argument.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing two different approaches to handle asynchronous operations:

1. **Promises**: A promise-based approach, where the `promises()` function returns a resolved Promise with the value 123.
2. **Callbacks**: A callback-based approach, where the `callbacks((_) => {})` function takes a callback function as an argument and calls it with the value 123.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Promises**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to read and understand, especially for developers familiar with synchronous code.
		+ Provides better error handling and debugging capabilities.
		+ Can be chained together using `then()` and `catch()`.
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional setup and overhead (e.g., creating a Promise object).
2. **Callbacks**:
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and easy to implement.
		+ Suitable for cases where error handling is not critical.
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to tangled code and make debugging more challenging.
		+ May require additional memory allocation.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, the `Promise` library is used in the `promises()` function. The `Promise` library provides a built-in way to work with promises, which allows for better error handling and chaining of asynchronous operations.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to handle asynchronous programming, consider the following:

1. **Async/Await**: A syntax sugar on top of Promises, providing a more synchronous-like experience.
2. **Generators**: Can be used to implement asynchronous functions with a more declarative style.
3. **Cooperative scheduling**: Libraries like `co` or `bluebird` provide an alternative way to handle asynchronous operations using cooperative scheduling.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The provided script preparation code is:
```javascript
function promises() {
  return Promise.resolve(123);
}

function callbacks(cb) {
  return cb(123);
}
```
This code defines two functions: `promises()` and `callbacks((_) => {})`. The `promises()` function returns a resolved Promise with the value 123, while the `callbacks()` function takes a callback function as an argument and calls it with the value 123.

Related benchmarks:

promise vs callback 123 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: async vs callback

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

async

callback

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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