Benchmark: assign vs void - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var fn = () => {
	var a = 'a'
}
var fn2 = () => fn()
var fn3 = () => fn2()

Tests:

assign
var a = 'a'
fn
fn()
fn2
fn2()
fn3
fn3()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
assign
fn
fn2
fn3

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/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
assign	1005876288.0 Ops/sec
fn	32681104.0 Ops/sec
fn2	16544503.0 Ops/sec
fn3	10894861.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an explanation of the provided benchmark, its options, pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the execution time of three different function calls: `assign`, `fn`, `fn2`, and `fn3`. The script preparation code defines a function `fn` that assigns a value to variable `a`. Two additional functions, `fn2` and `fn3`, call `fn` recursively.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the execution time of three different approaches:

1. **Direct Assignment**: Assigning a value directly to variable `a`.
2. **Function Call with No Arguments**: Calling function `fn` without any arguments.
3. **Recursive Function Call**: Calling functions `fn2` and `fn3`, which recursively call `fn`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Direct Assignment**:
	* Pros: Simple, no overhead from function calls or recursion.
	* Cons: May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where variables are assigned values through functions.
2. **Function Call with No Arguments**:
	* Pros: Simulates calling a function without any input parameters, which can be relevant in some cases.
	* Cons: May not accurately represent how functions are typically used in code.
3. **Recursive Function Call**:
	* Pros: More representative of real-world scenarios where functions are called recursively.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to recursive function calls.

**Library and Special JavaScript Features**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, it's worth noting that the use of arrow functions (`=>`) and variable declarations (e.g., `var a = 'a';`) are modern JavaScript features that may affect the execution time.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Warm-up Period**: The benchmark might not accurately represent real-world usage, as most browsers have a warm-up period before executing benchmarks.
2. **Garbage Collection**: The benchmark doesn't account for garbage collection, which can impact performance in some cases.
3. **System Resources**: The benchmark only measures CPU time and doesn't consider other system resources, such as memory or disk I/O.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

Other alternatives to this benchmark could include:

1. **A more comprehensive test suite**, covering various aspects of JavaScript execution, such as DOM manipulation, event handling, and async operations.
2. **Benchmarks with different input parameters**, simulating how functions are typically used in code.
3. **Multi-threaded or parallelized benchmarks**, measuring the performance of JavaScript in concurrent environments.

In summary, this benchmark provides a basic understanding of function call overhead in JavaScript but might not accurately represent real-world scenarios. Considering additional factors and alternative approaches can provide a more comprehensive understanding of JavaScript performance.

Related benchmarks:

assign vs void (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: assign vs fn vs fn2 vs fn3

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

assign

fn

fn2

fn3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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