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
Jump 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>
Test name
Executions per second
noop
13464436.0 Ops/sec
new function
151485984.0 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
lodash dropRigth vs native pop
isEmpty vs. vanilla
lodash noop vs new function vs optional chaining
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?