Benchmark: Return true vs empty body

Script Preparation code:

var notDefined;
var defined = 1;

var emptyFunc = function() {};
var trueFunc = function() { return true; }
var undefinedFunc = function() { return undefined; }
var nullFunc = function() { return null; }
var undefinedFunc2 = function() { return; }
var notDefinedFunc = function() { return notDefined; }
var definedFunc = function() { return defined; }
var staticFunc = function() { return 1; }

Tests:

nullFunc
nullFunc();
undefinedFunc2
undefinedFunc2();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
nullFunc
undefinedFunc2

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.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two functions: `nullFunc` and `undefinedFunc2`. The benchmark is designed to test how quickly these functions can be executed.

**Script Preparation Code Analysis**

The script preparation code defines several variables:

*   `notDefined`: an undefined variable (not used in the benchmark)
*   `defined`: a defined variable set to 1
*   `emptyFunc`, `trueFunc`, and `nullFunc`: empty, true-value returning, and null-returning functions, respectively
*   `undefinedFunc2` and `notDefinedFunc`: functions that return undefined or not-defined values

The benchmark uses these variables to create instances of the `undefinedFunc2` and `nullFunc` functions.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1.  **nullFunc**: a function that returns null
2.  **undefinedFunc2**: a function that returns undefined (i.e., null in JavaScript)

These options are compared to determine which one executes faster.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

*   **nullFunc**: This option is simple and straightforward, as it directly returns null.
    *   Pros: easy to implement, no additional checks needed
    *   Cons: may not be the best representation of a "falsy" value in JavaScript (e.g., some functions might still execute even when returning falsey values)
*   **undefinedFunc2**: This option is more representative of a function that returns an undefined value.
    *   Pros: provides a better test case for handling undefined values
    *   Cons: may introduce unnecessary complexity due to the empty statement (`return;`) at the end

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark does not account for any potential side effects or interactions between functions. It only measures the execution time of each function.

**Library Usage**

None of the libraries are explicitly mentioned in the provided code. However, it's likely that the benchmark uses a JavaScript engine that provides the necessary infrastructure for running benchmarks.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There is no mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax (e.g., async/await, arrow functions, etc.) in this benchmark. The code only consists of basic function definitions and executions.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to create a similar benchmark with different options, you could consider the following alternatives:

1.  **return false**: Another common "falsy" value that can be used as an option.
2.  **0**: A number that is considered falsy in JavaScript.
3.  **false**: A boolean value that represents a false statement.

You could also experiment with different types of functions, such as:

1.  **async functions**: Adding asynchronous behavior to the benchmark
2.  **function expressions**: Using function literals or function constructors instead of function declarations

Related benchmarks:

Return true vs empty body (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: nullFunc vs undefinedFunc2

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

nullFunc

undefinedFunc2

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):