Benchmark: some proxy tests

Script Preparation code:

object = {
    value: 'data',
    use: () => 'use'
};
proxy = new Proxy(object, {})
proxyWithHandler = new Proxy(object, {
    get(target, prop, receiver) {
        if (prop === 'use') return () => 'not_use';
        return target[prop];
    }
})

Tests:

object.use;
object.use();
proxy.use;
proxy.use();
proxyWithHandler.use;
proxyWithHandler.use();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
object.use;
proxy.use;
proxyWithHandler.use;

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/94.0.4606.61 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 94 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
object.use;	8908512.0 Ops/sec
proxy.use;	6083779.5 Ops/sec
proxyWithHandler.use;	5805687.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains three scripts:
```javascript
object = {
  value: 'data',
  use: () => 'use'
};

proxy = new Proxy(object, {});

proxyWithHandler = new Proxy(object, {
  get(target, prop, receiver) {
    if (prop === 'use') return () => 'not_use';
    return target[prop];
  }
});
```
These scripts create two objects: `object` and `proxy`. The `proxy` object is created using the `Proxy` constructor with an empty configuration object. This creates a proxy object that intercepts all property accesses on the original object.

The second script, `proxyWithHandler`, is also a proxy object, but it has a custom getter function for the `use` property. When accessed, this property returns a new function instead of the expected value `'use'`. This sets up a handler to modify the behavior of the proxy.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark compares three different approaches:

1. **Direct Property Access**: The first script uses direct property access on the `object`, which is simply `object.use`.
2. **Proxy with Empty Handler**: The second script creates a proxy object with an empty handler, which intercepts all property accesses using `proxy.use()`.
3. **Proxy with Custom Getter**: The third script creates a proxy object with a custom getter function for the `use` property, which modifies its behavior when accessed as `proxyWithHandler.use()`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Direct Property Access**: This approach is simple and straightforward but may be slower due to the overhead of JavaScript's type checking.
2. **Proxy with Empty Handler**: This approach provides a basic level of control over property accesses but can be less efficient than direct access since it involves additional lookups.
3. **Proxy with Custom Getter**: This approach offers more flexibility in controlling property behavior, as it allows for modifying the getter function to return specific values or functions.

**Library and Purpose:**
The `Proxy` constructor is a built-in JavaScript object that creates a proxy object. A proxy object is an object that intercepts all property accesses on its target object, allowing for custom handling of these operations.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**
This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard language.

**Other Considerations:**

* The benchmark assumes that the `Proxy` constructor and its methods are supported by the target browsers.
* The benchmark may not be representative of real-world scenarios, as it focuses on a specific set of test cases.

**Alternatives:**
If you're interested in alternative approaches to creating proxy objects or controlling property behavior, consider the following options:

1. **Object.getPrototypeOf() and Object.create()**: These methods can be used to create a new object that inherits from an existing one, allowing for some level of control over property accesses.
2. **Function expressions and closures**: You can use function expressions and closures to create custom logic for handling property accesses, but this approach may be more complex and less efficient than using the `Proxy` constructor.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful test case for evaluating the performance of different approaches to creating proxy objects and controlling property behavior in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

some proxy tests (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: object.use; vs proxy.use; vs proxyWithHandler.use;

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

object.use;

proxy.use;

proxyWithHandler.use;

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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