Benchmark: arguments vs spread vs loop

Script Preparation code:

var count = 0;

function sum(value) {
	count += value;
}

function one(value) {
  sum(value);
}

function two() {
  for (var i = 0, l = arguments.length; i < l; i++) {
  	sum(arguments[i]);  
  }
}

function three(...args) {
  for (var i = 0, l = args.length; i < l; i++) {
  	sum(args[i]);  
  }
}

var values = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10];

Tests:

loop
count = 0; one(10.5); one(10.5); one(10.5);
arguments
count = 0; two(10.5, 10.5, 10.5);
spread
count = 0; three(10.5, 10.5, 10.5);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
loop
arguments
spread

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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test measures the performance difference between three approaches:

1. **Arguments**: Using the `arguments` keyword to pass multiple values to a function.
2. **Spread**: Using the spread operator (`...`) to pass multiple values as an array.
3. **Loop**: Manually iterating over an array using a `for` loop.

**Options Compared**

Each option is compared in terms of execution speed, with the goal of determining which approach yields the best performance.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Arguments**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple to use and understand.
		+ Doesn't require modifying function signatures or explicit type declarations.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slow due to the overhead of parsing and evaluating multiple values within a single function call.
		+ Might lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., when dealing with large numbers of arguments).
2. **Spread**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient than `arguments` since it avoids parsing and evaluation overhead.
		+ Allows for more flexibility in function signatures and can be used with other functional programming constructs (e.g., arrow functions).
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional setup or modifications to work correctly, especially when dealing with older browsers or environments that don't support the spread operator.
3. **Loop**
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient since it avoids function call overhead and only requires a simple loop iteration.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual management of array indices and loops, which can be error-prone and less readable.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark code or JSON definitions. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may still support older JavaScript features (e.g., `arguments`, spread operator) to varying degrees, depending on their version and configuration.

**Library Usage**

There doesn't appear to be any explicit library usage in the provided benchmark code or JSON definitions.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to passing multiple values to a function include:

1. **Array literal**: Using an array of values as a single argument (e.g., `func([1, 2, 3])`).
2. **Function with multiple parameters**: Modifying the function signature to accept multiple individual parameters (e.g., `func(a, b, c)`).

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be suitable for all use cases or environments.

Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and focused way to measure performance differences between three distinct approaches to passing multiple values to a JavaScript function.

Related benchmarks:

arguments vs spread vs loop (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: loop vs arguments vs spread

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

loop

arguments

spread

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):