Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
array fn vs function
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
array fn vs function
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Registered User
Go to the latest result
Tests:
array fn
var fn = () => {} fn()
function
function fn2() {} fn2()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
array fn
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/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 120 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=490842" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
array fn
1016.2M/s
function
1014.8M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
array fn
1,016,224,128 Ops/sec
function
1,014,776,960 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
**Overview** The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between using arrow functions (`array fn`) and traditional function declarations (`function`) in JavaScript. This comparison is relevant because both approaches can impact the execution speed of code. **Test Case 1: array fn** This test case uses an arrow function, which is a concise way to define small, single-purpose functions. In this specific test, an empty arrow function `() => {}` is defined and immediately invoked twice. **Pros of using arrow functions:** * Concise syntax * Less boilerplate code * Easier to read and write However, the performance implications of using arrow functions are not as clear-cut. Some argue that arrow functions can lead to slightly slower execution due to the creation of a new scope and variable bindings. **Cons of using arrow functions:** * May require additional browser support (e.g., older browsers may not optimize arrow function invocation) * Can lead to increased code size (due to the need for additional syntax) In this test case, Chrome 120 on a Desktop with Mac OS X 10.15.7 produces an Execution Per Second value of approximately 1016,242,128. **Test Case 2: function** This test case uses a traditional function declaration (`function fn2() {}`) and is invoked twice. **Pros of using traditional function declarations:** * Wide browser support (most browsers optimize traditional function invocation) * Typically faster execution due to optimized compiler optimizations However, this approach requires more boilerplate code compared to arrow functions. In this test case, Chrome 120 on a Desktop with Mac OS X 10.15.7 produces an Execution Per Second value of approximately 1014,767,960. **Comparison and Conclusion** The results suggest that the performance difference between using arrow functions (`array fn`) and traditional function declarations (`function`) is relatively small. However, Chrome 120 on a Desktop with Mac OS X 10.15.7 favors traditional function declarations by approximately 474,168 executions per second. When choosing between these approaches, consider the following: * Use arrow functions when: + You need to define small, single-purpose functions. + You prioritize concise syntax and easier code readability. * Use traditional function declarations when: + You need wider browser support (older browsers may not optimize arrow function invocation). + You require faster execution due to optimized compiler optimizations. **Alternative Approaches** Other alternatives for measuring JavaScript performance might include: 1. **ES6 modules**: Measuring the performance difference between using ES6 module syntax (`import`, `export`) versus traditional module syntax (`require`, `module.exports`). 2. **Async/await**: Comparing the performance of using async/await with traditional callback-based approaches. 3. **Object creation**: Measuring the performance impact of object creation using different methods (e.g., `{}` vs. `new Object()` vs. `Object.create(null)`). These alternative benchmarks can provide more insights into specific JavaScript features and help identify potential bottlenecks in your codebase.
Related benchmarks
Rest vs. Arguments to Array
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?