Benchmark: Functions vs arrow functions

HTML Preparation code:

<div id="test"></div>

Tests:

Functions
(function(){ (function(){ (function(){ (function(){ (function(){ (function(){ var test = document.getElementById('test'); })(); })(); })(); })(); })(); })();
Arrow functions
(() => { (() => { (() => { (() => { (() => { (() => { var test = document.getElementById('test'); })(); })(); })(); })(); })(); })();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Functions
Arrow functions

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Functions	17651498.0 Ops/sec
Arrow functions	18347654.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance of functions versus arrow functions.

**What is tested:**

The benchmark compares two types of function expressions:

1. **Regular functions**: The traditional way of defining functions in JavaScript using the `function` keyword, followed by an anonymous inner function.
2. **Arrow functions**: A concise syntax for defining small, single-purpose functions introduced in ECMAScript 2015.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark only compares these two options and does not test other aspects of JavaScript performance, such as:

* Loops (e.g., `for`, `while`)
* Object iteration
* DOM manipulation
* Closure management

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Regular functions**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and maintainable code (in some cases)
		+ Easier to debug and analyze
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower due to the overhead of function declarations
2. **Arrow functions**
	* Pros:
		+ Concise syntax, making the code more compact and easier to read
		+ Faster execution since there is no overhead of function declarations
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable and maintainable code (in some cases)
		+ May not be compatible with older browsers or environments

**Library usage:**

None.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

Arrow functions are a new syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015. They provide a concise way to define small, single-purpose functions.

**Benchmark preparation code and test cases:**

The benchmark uses two identical test cases:

* `Functions`: A traditional function expression with nested anonymous functions.
* `Arrow functions`: An arrow function equivalent of the previous test case.

The `Script Preparation Code` is empty, which means that no additional setup or initialization code is required before running the benchmark. The `Html Preparation Code` includes a simple `<div>` element to serve as a placeholder for the benchmark results.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to add more options to the benchmark, you could consider testing:

* Loops (e.g., `for`, `while`)
* Object iteration methods (e.g., `forEach`, `map`)
* DOM manipulation techniques (e.g., using `addEventListener` instead of `onclick` attributes)
* Closure management strategies (e.g., using weak references or modules)

Keep in mind that adding more options to the benchmark can make it more complex and harder to maintain.

Related benchmarks:

Functions vs arrow functions (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Functions vs Arrow functions

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Functions

Arrow functions

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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