Benchmark: proto vs pattern

Tests:

proto
function Paddle(x, y, width, height) { this.x = x; this.y = y; this.width = width; this.height = height; this.x_speed = 0; this.y_speed = 0; } var x = new Paddle(30, 30, 30, 30) var y = new Paddle(30, 30, 30, 30)
module
function paddle(x, y, width, height) { var self = {}; self.x = x; self.y = y; self.width = width; self.height = height; self.x_speed = 0; self.y_speed = 0; return self; } var x = paddle(30, 30, 30, 30) var y = paddle(30, 30, 30, 30)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
proto
module

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to creating objects in JavaScript: using prototypes (also known as classes or constructors) and using modules (a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015).

**Options being compared**

There are two test cases:

1. **Prototype** (`"proto"`): This approach uses the `new` keyword to create a new object instance from a function, which is stored in the prototype chain.
2. **Module** (`"module"`): This approach creates an object using a module function, which returns a new object with properties and methods.

**Pros and Cons**

**Prototype (Classes/Constructors)**

Pros:

* More concise syntax for creating objects
* Easier to manage inheritance relationships between classes
* Can be used in older JavaScript versions that don't support modules

Cons:

* Less encapsulation, as properties are shared among all instances of the class
* Can lead to tight coupling between classes
* Not suitable for object-oriented programming without a prototype chain

**Module (ES6 Classes)**

Pros:

* More modular and self-contained code organization
* Encapsulation is built-in, with private fields and methods
* Suitable for object-oriented programming with inheritance and composition

Cons:

* Requires support for ES6 classes in the JavaScript engine or runtime environment
* Can be less concise than prototype-based approaches

**Library usage**

The test cases use the `Paddle` function as a class, which is not explicitly stated to be a library. However, it's likely that this is an example implementation of a Paddle object, and not a real library.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax for defining classes and functions.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to creating objects in JavaScript, here are a few options:

* **Mixin**: A technique where you combine multiple objects into one using the `Object.assign()` method.
* **Object.create()**: A method that creates a new object from an existing prototype, allowing for more fine-grained control over inheritance.
* **Closure-based objects**: Objects created using closure techniques, which can provide more encapsulation and security than traditional classes or modules.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as widely supported or well-documented as the standard class-based approach.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/58.0.3029.81 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 58 on Mac OS X 10.11.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
proto	98760.2 Ops/sec
module	6832813.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

proto vs pattern (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: proto vs module

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

proto

module

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):