Some of coworkers are saying that nesting functions is bad for performance and I wanted to ask about this.

Lets say I have the function:

function calculateStuff() {
    function helper() {
    // helper does things
    }
    // calculateStuff does things
    helper();
}

helper is a private function that is only used inside calculateStuff. That's why I wanted to encapsulate this inside calculateStuff.

Is this worse performance wise than doing:

function helper() {

}

function calculateStuff() {
    helper();
}

Notice that in the second case, I expose helper to my scope.

Some of coworkers are saying that nesting functions is bad for performance and I wanted to ask about this.

Lets say I have the function:

function calculateStuff() {
    function helper() {
    // helper does things
    }
    // calculateStuff does things
    helper();
}

helper is a private function that is only used inside calculateStuff. That's why I wanted to encapsulate this inside calculateStuff.

Is this worse performance wise than doing:

function helper() {

}

function calculateStuff() {
    helper();
}

Notice that in the second case, I expose helper to my scope.

• javascript
• performance
• nested-function

• I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because performance metrics are best handled by jsperf and have a short shelf-life as browsers evolve. – Evan Davis Commented Oct 20, 2015 at 23:20
• 1 Don't ask others about performance. When in doubt, measure it. – Bergi Commented Oct 20, 2015 at 23:22

2 Answers 2

In theory, there's a potential performance impact, in that you need to create a new closure context for helper every time calculateStuff is called (because it might reference variables from the enclosing scope).

I'm pretty sure that the JIT piler in most JavaScript engines should be able to tell that you aren't actually accessing any variables from the parent context, and just skip binding all of those values. I may be missing some edge case where this isn't generally possible, but it seems straighforward-enough.

In any case, we're talking about nanoseconds of overhead per iteration, so unless your code is executed a lot, you'd never notice the time difference. If in doubt, profile it and check...

I decided to follow my own advice, and profile this on jsperf, with Safari 9. I used the do-nothing functions as provided in the original question, to highlight the overhead of just calling a nested function:

Nested functions: 136,000,000 calls per second

Flat functions: 1,035,000,000 cals per second

Oriol's IIFE version: 220,000,000 cals per second

Clearly the flat functions are much faster than either of the alternative versions. However, think about the magnitude of those numbers - even the "slow" version only adds 0.007 microseconds to the execution time. If you do any kind of calculation or DOM manipulation in that function, it'll absolutely dwarf the overhead of the nested function.

With your first code, at each call of calculateStuff, a new copy of helper will be created.

With your second code, all calls will share the same helper, but it will pollute the outer scope.

If you want to reuse helper without polluting the outer scope, you can use an IIFE:

var calculateStuff = (function () {
  function helper() {
    // helper does things
  }
  return function() {
    // calculateStuff does things
    helper();
  }
})();