Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash noop vs new function
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
noop vs new function
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Tests:
noop
var a = _.noop a()
new function
var a = () => {} a()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
noop
new function
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=515035" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
new function
151.5M/s
noop
13.5M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
new function
151,485,984 Ops/sec
noop
13,464,436 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case created using MeasureThat.net. The test compares the performance of two approaches: creating a new function using an arrow function (`=>`) versus using the `lodash.noop` function. **Options compared:** 1. **Creating a new function using an arrow function (`=>`)**: * Pros: + Concise and readable syntax + Can be useful when defining small, one-time-use functions * Cons: + May not be as performant as traditional function creation methods due to the overhead of creating a new scope 2. **Using `lodash.noop`**: * Pros: + Fast and lightweight since it's a pre-compiled, optimized function + Reduces boilerplate code and improves readability * Cons: + May require an additional dependency (the `lodash` library) + Can be less readable for some developers **Other considerations:** * The test only measures the performance of these two specific approaches, without considering other factors like function name length or usage patterns. * The benchmark assumes that the functions being created are identical in terms of behavior and parameters. **Library (lodash.noop)**: The `lodash.noop` function is a lightweight, pre-compiled function that does nothing when called. It's designed to be used as a no-op placeholder function, reducing the need for boilerplate code or additional function creation overhead. **Special JS feature (Arrow Functions)**: Arrow functions are a shorthand syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). They allow creating small, single-expression functions with a concise syntax. In this benchmark, arrow functions are compared to traditional function creation methods. The use of arrow functions is generally considered a good practice for simple, one-time-use functions due to their readability and conciseness. However, performance-wise, they might not be the best choice for every situation. **Alternatives:** Other alternatives for creating small functions could include: * Using `Function.prototype` to create an anonymous function * Utilizing other utility libraries or frameworks that provide lightweight, pre-compiled functions (like Ramda or Immer) * Implementing a custom, performance-optimized function creation mechanism specific to the use case Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.
Related benchmarks
isFunction vs typeof function 6
isEmpty vs. vanilla
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?