How does naming an anonymous function in JavaScript make a difference?

Question

I am analyzing the following two urls from John Resig\'s site, but I am not understanding how giving a name to the anonymous function has made a difference.

My understan

Answer 1

in the examples internally you can skip the additional access to the ninja object in #13

anonymous closure (accessing object ninja is needed although we are already in that context):

var ninja = { 
  yell: function(n){ 
    return n > 0 ? ninja.yell(n-1) + "a" : "hiy"; 
  } 
};

named closure can be called directly:

var ninja = { 
  yell: function yell(n){ 
    return n > 0 ? yell(n-1) + "a" : "hiy"; 
  } 
};

another advantage is that named closures enable stacktracing:

so assuming you do:

(function fooBar() { console.log(brazl); })();
// will create an error with "fooBar" in the stack trace instead of "anonymous function"

EDIT: although it might look like overhead sometimes it helps debugging during development and for example YUICompressor and Closure Compiler can strip these names if they are not essentially needed