Benchmark: Nesting of functions in JavaScript

Script Preparation code:

var func1 = function() {
	var innerf = function (callback) {
    	return callback();
    }
    return innerf(Math.random);
}

var innerff = function(callback) {
	return callback();
}

var func2 = function() {
	return innerff(Math.random);
}

Tests:

nesting of function
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { func1(); }
none nesting of function
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { func2(); }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

nesting of function

141/s

none nesting of function

139/s

View exact numbers

✓ nesting of function: 141 ops/sec
• none nesting of function: 139 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
nesting of function
none nesting of function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

nesting of function

5K/s

none nesting of function

4K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ nesting of function	4,526 Ops/sec
none nesting of function	3,534 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is represented by a JSON object that defines two JavaScript functions: `func1` and `func2`. Both functions are designed to demonstrate the nesting of functions in JavaScript. The functions have the same purpose, but `func2` is essentially an empty function that simply returns without any inner logic.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code is a JavaScript snippet that defines both `func1` and `func2` functions. The `func1` function creates a nested function called `innerf`, which takes a callback function as an argument and returns the result of calling the callback function with `Math.random` as an argument. The `func2` function is similar, but it only returns without any inner logic.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code is empty in this benchmark, suggesting that the test focuses solely on the JavaScript execution performance.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Nesting of Function**: This test case runs the `func1` function 1000 times using a `for` loop.
2. **None Nesting of Function**: This test case runs the `func2` function 1000 times using a `for` loop.

**Tested Options**

The benchmark tests two options:

*   **Nesting of Functions**: The first test case measures the performance of calling a nested function (`innerf`) inside another function (`func1`). This approach can be beneficial when working with complex logic that requires recursive calls.
*   **No Nesting of Functions**: The second test case measures the performance of calling an empty function (`func2`) 1000 times. This approach is useful for testing cases where a simple function call is required without any nested logic.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **Nesting of Functions**:
    *   Pros: Can be beneficial when working with complex logic that requires recursive calls.
    *   Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the creation of inner scopes and potential stack overflows if not implemented carefully.
*   **No Nesting of Functions**:
    *   Pros: Typically has lower overhead compared to nested function calls since it involves a simple function call without any additional logic.
    *   Cons: May not be suitable for testing cases that require recursive calls or complex logic.

**Other Considerations**

*   The benchmark uses `Math.random` as an argument in the callback functions, which can introduce additional randomness and affect the performance results. To mitigate this, you could consider using a fixed seed value for `Math.random`.
*   Since the benchmark tests individual functions, it's essential to ensure that the functions are properly optimized for performance.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

If you want to test different scenarios or alternatives, here are some potential options:

*   **Array Iteration**: Replace the nested function calls with array iteration using `for...of` loops.
*   **Object Access**: Use object access instead of function calls to see how the performance differs.
*   **Closure-based Logic**: Implement closure-based logic in both test cases to explore the impact of closures on performance.

Keep in mind that these alternative benchmarks may require modifications to the script preparation code and individual test cases.

Nesting of functions in JavaScript (version: 5) Benchmark.js

Nesting of functions in JavaScript

Comparing performance of: `nesting of function vs none nesting of function`

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

nesting of function

none nesting of function

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Nesting of functions in JavaScript (version: 5) Benchmark.js

Nesting of functions in JavaScript

Comparing performance of: nesting of function vs none nesting of function

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

nesting of function

none nesting of function

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 5 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `nesting of function vs none nesting of function`