Benchmark: Component re-renders 2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react/16.13.1/umd/react.production.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/react-dom/16.13.1/umd/react-dom.production.min.js"></script>
<div id="root"></div>

Script Preparation code:

function Warmup(props) {
  return React.createElement('button', {
  }, 'Click me!');
}

const FunctionalComponent = (props) => {
  return React.createElement('div')
}


class ClassComponent extends React.Component { 
  render() {
    return React.createElement('div')
  }
}

class ClassPureComponent extends React.PureComponent { 
  render() {
    return React.createElement('div')
  }
}

const MemoizedFunctionalComponent = React.memo(FunctionalComponent)

function TestFunctionalComponent () {
  return React.createElement(FunctionalComponent, { a: Math.random() })
}

function TestMemoizedFunctionalComponent () {
  return React.createElement(MemoizedFunctionalComponent, { a: Math.random() })
}

function TestClassComponent () {
  return React.createElement(ClassComponent, { a: Math.random() })
}

function TestClassPureComponent () {
  return React.createElement(ClassPureComponent, { a: Math.random() })
}

Tests:

Warmup
ReactDOM.render(React.createElement(Warmup), document.getElementById('root'))
TestFunctionalComponent
ReactDOM.render(React.createElement(TestFunctionalComponent), document.getElementById('root'))
TestMemoizedFunctionalComponent
ReactDOM.render(React.createElement(TestMemoizedFunctionalComponent), document.getElementById('root'))
TestClassComponent
ReactDOM.render(React.createElement(TestClassComponent), document.getElementById('root'))
TestClassPureComponent
ReactDOM.render(React.createElement(TestClassPureComponent), document.getElementById('root'))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Warmup
TestFunctionalComponent
TestMemoizedFunctionalComponent
TestClassComponent
TestClassPureComponent

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of different React components in a React application. The test cases compare the execution time of various component implementations:

1. `Warmup`: Renders a simple button element using the `React.createElement` method.
2. `TestFunctionalComponent`, `TestMemoizedFunctionalComponent`, and their counterparts (`TestClassComponent` and `TestClassPureComponent`) render more complex components that utilize functional programming, memoization, and class-based component implementation.

**Library and Its Purpose**

The benchmark uses React, a JavaScript library for building user interfaces. Specifically, it relies on the following libraries:

* `react`: Provides the foundation for building React applications.
* `react-dom`: A companion library to `react` that provides DOM-related functionality.

These libraries are used to render the components in the test cases.

**Comparison of Options**

The benchmark compares different approaches to component implementation:

1. **Simple Button Component (Warmup)**: Renders a simple button element using the `React.createElement` method.
2. **Functional Components**: Utilizes functional programming to create components that do not have their own state or lifecycle methods. This approach is more lightweight and efficient than class-based components.
3. **Memoized Functional Components**: A variation of functional components that uses memoization to optimize rendering by caching the component's output.
4. **Class-Based Components**: Uses classes to define components with their own state and lifecycle methods.
5. **Pure Class-Based Components**: A variant of class-based components that ensures a pure function-like behavior, meaning the component will only re-render if its props change.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **Simple Button Component (Warmup)**:
	* Pros: Simple to implement, minimal overhead.
	* Cons: May not accurately represent real-world usage scenarios.
2. **Functional Components**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, efficient, easy to reason about code.
	* Cons: Can be less intuitive for complex state management or lifecycle methods.
3. **Memoized Functional Components**:
	* Pros: Optimizes rendering by caching output, reducing unnecessary re-renders.
	* Cons: May introduce additional complexity due to memoization.
4. **Class-Based Components**:
	* Pros: Can handle complex state and lifecycle methods, more intuitive for some developers.
	* Cons: Heavier, more overhead compared to functional components.
5. **Pure Class-Based Components**:
	* Pros: Ensures a pure function-like behavior, making it easier to reason about code.
	* Cons: May require additional boilerplate code for memoization.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark does not explicitly test any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as:

* Async/await
* Promises
* Generators
* Arrow functions (used in some functional component implementations)

If you'd like to explore these features in the context of React performance, MeasureThat.net likely has existing benchmarks that cover them.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or testing different aspects of React performance, here are some alternatives:

1. **Create a new benchmark**: You can create a new benchmark using MeasureThat.net's API to test your own hypothesis or explore a specific aspect of React performance.
2. **Use existing benchmarks**: MeasureThat.net provides a wide range of existing benchmarks that cover various aspects of React performance. You can use these benchmarks as a starting point and modify them to suit your needs.
3. **Explore other libraries and frameworks**: If you're interested in exploring performance optimization techniques for other JavaScript libraries or frameworks, you may want to explore alternatives like Vue.js, Angular, or Ember.js.

By breaking down the benchmark and understanding its components, we've gained a deeper appreciation for the trade-offs involved in choosing different approaches to component implementation.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/97.0.4692.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 97 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Warmup	904962.9 Ops/sec
TestFunctionalComponent	669725.5 Ops/sec
TestMemoizedFunctionalComponent	656312.9 Ops/sec
TestClassComponent	651701.0 Ops/sec
TestClassPureComponent	646914.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Component re-renders 2 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Warmup vs TestFunctionalComponent vs TestMemoizedFunctionalComponent vs TestClassComponent vs TestClassPureComponent

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Warmup

TestFunctionalComponent

TestMemoizedFunctionalComponent

TestClassComponent

TestClassPureComponent

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):