Shorthand for "function" keyword

J Decker d3ck0r at
Sun Nov 12 10:45:03 UTC 2017

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 2:14 AM, T.J. Crowder <
tj.crowder at> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:56 AM, J Decker <d3ck0r at> wrote:
> > Arrow functions passed as callback to Node.js addons execute 20%
> > slower than regular 'function()' functions.
> **Wow**. Is that written up somewhere one could read more?
> When you say "Node.js addon," are you excluding built-in Node APIs?

Basically it was an empty function I was calling with some simple
parameters  It was only something I found through experimentation.  It
really has nothing to do with NodeJS other than it was an addon, it was
just interacting with the V8 engine.

Writing file...
Wrote in  199  .. reading...
()=>{} Read in ... 300000 3394
function(){} Read in ... 300000 2690
and line 18 is the other one.
In the function I just increment a counter....  126% or 79.25%  ...but then
there is quite a bit of overhead in my library to parse the JSON. that's
quite a nested object
Hmm... changed the file that was being generated to just a simple string,
and the timings were closer (but was less than 1 second run) so I added
some generation counts and ran the tests in various orders... and I guess
maybe it was because of other factors that coincidentally showed as ()=>{}
being slower than function(){}

function(){} Read in ... 100000 958
()=>{} Read in ... 100000 906
()=>{} Read in ... 100000 784
function(){} Read in ... 100000 783
()=>{} Read in ... 100000 924
function(){} Read in ... 100000 779
function(){} Read in ... 100000 881
()=>{} Read in ... 100000 805

then just reversed the two tests in the original script and the timing
stayed the same in-order... but then would show function() as being the
slower one.

My Bad; thanx for asking about that though I would have been stuck with
that misconception for a long time.

> -- T.J. Crowder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the es-discuss mailing list