Benchmark: Fat Arrow - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

No fat arrow
var Obj = (function () { function Obj(a, b) { this.a = a; this.b = b; } ; Obj.prototype.c = function (v) { return this.a + v; }; Obj.prototype.d = function (v) { return this.a + this.b + v; }; return Obj; }()); var obj = new Obj(1, 2); var e = 1; var e = obj.c(e) + obj.d(e + 1);
With fat arrow
function makeObj(a, b) { return { c: function (v) { return a + v; }, d: function (v) { return a + b + v; } }; } var obj = makeObj(1, 2); var e = 1; var e = obj.c(e) + obj.d(e + 1);
With fat arrow and let
function makeObj(_a, _b) { var a = _a; var b = _b; return { c: function (v) { return a + v; }, d: function (v) { return a + b + v; } }; } var obj = makeObj(1, 2); var e = 1; var e = obj.c(e) + obj.d(e + 1);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
No fat arrow
With fat arrow
With fat arrow and let

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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 its test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between three approaches:

1. Using traditional function declarations (e.g., `var makeObj = function(a, b) { ... }`)
2. Using fat arrow functions (e.g., `const makeObj = () => { ... }`)
3. Using a combination of fat arrow functions and `let` variables

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **No Fat Arrow**: This test case uses traditional function declarations to create an object with methods `c` and `d`.
2. **With Fat Arrow**: This test case uses fat arrow functions to create the same object.
3. **With Fat Arrow and Let**: This test case uses both fat arrow functions and `let` variables to create the object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these three approaches:

* Traditional function declarations (`var`)
* Fat arrow functions (`() => { ... }`)
* Combination of fat arrow functions and `let` variables (e.g., `const [a, b] = ...; let a = _a; let b = _b; return { ... }`)

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Traditional Function Declarations (`var`)**:
	* Pros: Well-established syntax, easy to understand, and widely supported.
	* Cons: Can lead to slower performance due to function creation overhead.
2. **Fat Arrow Functions**:
	* Pros: Simpler syntax, can reduce boilerplate code, and often faster performance.
	* Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable for complex logic.
3. **Combination of Fat Arrow Functions and `let` Variables**:
	* Pros: Offers a balance between readability and compactness.
	* Cons: Can lead to confusion if not used carefully, as the syntax can be unclear.

**Library and Syntax**

The test cases use a combination of:

1. Standard JavaScript functions (e.g., `function makeObj(a, b) { ... }`)
2. Fat arrow functions (e.g., `const makeObj = () => { ... }`)

There are no libraries used in the provided benchmark.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The test cases utilize:

1. **Fat Arrow Functions**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015, these allow for concise and readable syntax.
2. **`let` Variables**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015, these provide block scope and help reduce variable declarations.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives that could be used to measure performance differences in JavaScript functions include:

1. **ES6 modules**: Using `import` statements instead of `require`.
2. **Async/Await syntax**: Comparing the performance of synchronous vs. asynchronous code using promises or async/await.
3. **Different Closure styles**: Measuring the performance impact of different closure styles, such as using `bind()` or `call()` to create closures.

Please note that the specific alternatives will depend on the use case and requirements of the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Fat Arrow (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: No fat arrow vs With fat arrow vs With fat arrow and let

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

No fat arrow

With fat arrow

With fat arrow and let

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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