Agreed. With a difference of 1.5M operations per second, and assuming a screen refresh time of 16.66 (that's repeating, of course) milliseconds, you would have to execute 250K of the faster option changed to the slower one to make a noticeable difference even to a professional Starcraft player.
Actually jsPerf shows that arrow functions with implicit return are the fastest.
But the difference in performance is so small, that it shouldn't be taken into account when deciding what type of function to use.
Agreed. With a difference of 1.5M operations per second, and assuming a screen refresh time of 16.66 (that's repeating, of course) milliseconds, you would have to execute 250K of the faster option changed to the slower one to make a noticeable difference even to a professional Starcraft player.
This might be more interesting to compare: jsperf.com/fufufufu/3
In my test run the results are almost the same for all three tests (ops/sec varies +-1%).
That is the point ;)
This article is pretty fear mongering and statistically incorrect 🤓.
In the same line:
The bottleneck of the code is not going to be in the syntax one uses.
Agree!
👆 This comment.
You sir just destroyed the entire article . . . take a bow.