Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
arrow function vs function
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
arrow vs function
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
arrow
const a = (x, y) => x + y; a(3, 4);
function
function a(x, y) { return x + y; } a(3, 4);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
arrow
function
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 136 on Linux
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=604463" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
function
95.2M/s
arrow
93.9M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
function
95,177,592 Ops/sec
arrow
93,874,008 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and its options. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is called "arrow function vs function" and it measures the performance difference between using arrow functions and regular functions in JavaScript. **Options Compared** There are two main options being compared: 1. **Arrow Functions**: This approach uses the syntax `const a = (x, y) => x + y;` to define a small anonymous function. 2. **Regular Functions**: This approach uses the syntax `function a(x, y) { return x + y; }` to define a named function. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **Arrow Functions**: + Pros: More concise, can be defined inline with other code without creating a separate declaration. + Cons: Less readable, cannot be used as constructors or inherited in the same way as regular functions. * **Regular Functions**: + Pros: More readable, can be used as constructors and inherited like regular functions. + Cons: More verbose, requires explicit declaration. **Library and Purpose** There is no library being used explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that both arrow functions and regular functions are part of the ECMAScript standard and do not require any additional libraries to be supported by modern browsers. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** This benchmark uses a feature called **Arrow Functions**, which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). Arrow functions provide a concise way to define small, anonymous functions. The syntax `const a = (x, y) => x + y;` is used to define an arrow function that takes two arguments and returns their sum. **Other Alternatives** In addition to the two options being compared in this benchmark, other alternatives for creating small, anonymous functions include: * **Immediately Invoked Function Expressions (IIFE)**: `const a = () => x + y;()` is executed immediately after definition. * **Function expressions**: `const a = function(x, y) { return x + y; }` can be used to define a named or anonymous function. In summary, the "arrow function vs function" benchmark measures the performance difference between using arrow functions and regular functions in JavaScript. Arrow functions provide a concise way to define small, anonymous functions, but may be less readable than regular functions.
Related benchmarks
Arrow function vs function comparison
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?