Benchmark: Brackets vs arrow function

Tests:

Brackets
var acc = 0; for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { let value = 1; { let value = i; acc += value; }; value++; if(value !== 2) throw 'error'; }
Arrow function
var acc = 0; for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { let value = 1; (value => acc += value)(i); value++; if(value !== 2) throw 'error'; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Brackets
Arrow function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 126 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Brackets	119585.3 Ops/sec
Arrow function	47567.2 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's being tested, compared, and considered.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:

1. Brackets (also known as traditional function syntax)
2. Arrow functions (a concise syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015)

The test cases measure the performance of each approach in a simple loop where a variable `acc` is accumulated, and a condition is checked.

**Options compared:**

* Traditional function syntax (Brackets): `var acc = 0; for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { let value = 1; { let value = i; acc += value; } value++; if(value !== 2) throw 'error'; }`
* Arrow functions: `(value => acc += value)(i);` (using the Fat Arrow syntax)

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* Brackets:
	+ Pros:
		- More readable and maintainable for some developers
		- Easier to understand and debug, especially for complex logic
	+ Cons:
		- Less concise than arrow functions
		- May lead to unnecessary function creation (due to the outer scope)
* Arrow functions:
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and expressive syntax
		- Reduces clutter in code
	+ Cons:
		- Can be less readable for inexperienced developers or those who are not familiar with arrow functions
		- May require additional whitespace or line breaks to maintain readability

**Library/Functionality used:**

None mentioned. The test cases only involve JavaScript syntax.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

* Fat Arrow syntax (`(value => acc += value)(i);`) is used in the benchmark. This syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 and allows for concise function expressions with a shorter syntax.
	+ Pros:
		- More readable and expressive
	+ Cons:
		- May lead to confusion or difficulties for developers not familiar with this syntax

**Other alternatives:**

If arrow functions are not an option, other alternatives could include:

* Using the `function` keyword (e.g., `function(value) { return acc + value; }`)
* Using a separate function definition and immediately invoked (e.g., `(function(value) { return acc += value; })(i);`)
* Using another syntax or library that offers similar functionality to arrow functions.

It's worth noting that the choice of syntax often depends on personal preference, project requirements, and team norms.

Related benchmarks:

Brackets vs arrow function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Brackets vs Arrow function

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Brackets

Arrow function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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