Benchmark: inner-vs-outer-fn-declaration-4

Tests:

inner
const ARRAY_LENGTH = { length: 1000 }; const foo = () => { const a = n => n * Math.random(); const b = numbers => numbers.map(n => n * 2); return b(Array.from(ARRAY_LENGTH, (_, i) => a(i))) } Array.from(ARRAY_LENGTH, foo);
outer
const ARRAY_LENGTH = { length: 1000 }; const a = n => n * Math.random(); const b = numbers => numbers.map(n => n * 2); const foo = () => b(Array.from(ARRAY_LENGTH, (_, i) => a(i))); Array.from(ARRAY_LENGTH, foo);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
inner
outer

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 what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases, "inner" and "outer", which are identical except for the declaration of the `foo` function. The main difference lies in where the `foo` function is declared: either inside or outside the `Array.from(ARRAY_LENGTH, (_, i) => a(i))` expression.

**Options compared**

The two test cases compare two approaches to declaring a function:

1. **Outer function declaration**: In this approach, the `foo` function is declared outside the expression that generates an array of numbers (`Array.from(ARRAY_LENGTH, (_, i) => a(i))`). The outer function is called with the generated array as its argument.
2. **Inner function declaration**: In this approach, the `foo` function is declared inside the expression that generates an array of numbers.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Outer function declaration**:
	* Pros: This approach can be more efficient in terms of memory allocation and garbage collection, since the outer function doesn't need to retain a reference to the inner function's scope.
	* Cons: This approach may introduce additional overhead due to the need for function call overhead (e.g., lookup, activation, and return).
2. **Inner function declaration**:
	* Pros: This approach can simplify code and avoid explicit function declarations, making it easier to read and maintain.
	* Cons: This approach can lead to increased memory allocation and garbage collection overhead due to the need for a separate scope for the inner function.

**Library**

In both test cases, the `Array.from` method is used, which is part of the ECMAScript standard library. The `Array.from` method creates a new array from an iterable (in this case, the expression that generates the array).

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. However, it's worth noting that the use of arrow functions (`n => n * Math.random()` and `numbers => numbers.map(n => n * 2)`) is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Other alternatives**

If you were to rewrite this benchmark with alternative approaches, some options could include:

1. Using an intermediate function or closure to encapsulate the inner function's scope.
2. Using a lambda function (e.g., `Array.from(ARRAY_LENGTH, (_, i) => (n) => n * 2)`).
3. Using a for...of loop instead of Array.from.
4. Comparing different JavaScript engines or versions.

However, these alternatives would likely not produce significant differences in performance and are primarily intended to explore alternative code structures rather than benchmarking the original implementation.

Related benchmarks:

inner-vs-outer-fn-declaration-4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: inner vs outer

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

inner

outer

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):