Benchmark: Object.create vs Object literal

Script Preparation code:

let object;

Tests:

Object.create
object = Object.create(null,{a:'a'})
Object literal
object = {a:'a'}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.create
Object literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:131.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/131.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 131 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object.create	0.0 Ops/sec
Object literal	134424464.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test on MeasureThat.net, comparing two approaches to create an object in JavaScript: `Object.create` and the traditional method using an object literal.

**What is tested**

In this benchmark, we have two individual test cases:

1. **Object.create**: This approach creates an object using the `Object.create()` method, passing a null value as its first argument (indicating no prototype) and an object with properties to inherit from.
2. **Object literal**: This traditional approach creates an object directly using curly brackets `{}` and assigning properties to it.

**Options comparison**

The two approaches have different characteristics:

* **Performance**: Object literals are typically faster than `Object.create()` because they don't require a separate creation step or function call.
* **Memory usage**: Both methods allocate memory for the created object, but `Object literal` might be more efficient since it doesn't involve creating an additional object reference.
* **Flexibility**: `Object.create()` allows for specifying a custom prototype and can be useful in certain situations, such as when working with multiple inheritance or when you need to create objects with specific properties.

**Pros and Cons**

**Object literal:**
Pros:

* Faster
* More efficient memory usage

Cons:

* Less flexible (no option to specify prototype)

**Object.create():**
Pros:

* More flexible (specify custom prototype)
Cons:

* Slower
* Higher memory usage

**Other considerations**

There are a few points worth noting:

* **Null prototype**: When using `Object.create()`, the null value as its first argument means that the created object will not inherit from any global object or prototype chain. If you need to create objects with inheritance, this might be a limitation.
* **No inherent benefits for certain use cases**: For most common use cases, such as creating simple objects with properties, `Object literal` is sufficient and faster.

**Library usage**

None of the individual test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS features or syntax**

Neither of the two approaches utilizes special JavaScript features like ES6 classes, async/await, or generators.

**Alternatives**

If you want to benchmark other object creation methods in JavaScript, some alternatives could include:

* Using a library like Lodash's `create` function
* Creating an object using the `new` keyword (although this is not exactly equivalent to `Object.create()` in terms of performance and behavior)
* Using a different language or framework that might have built-in support for object creation (e.g., TypeScript with classes)

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs and nuances, making it essential to carefully consider the specific requirements of your use case when choosing an approach.

Related benchmarks:

Object.create vs Object literal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.create vs Object literal

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.create

Object literal

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):