Benchmark: Test prototype speed

Script Preparation code:

var Vec2 = function(x, y) {
  this.x = x || 0;
  this.y = y || 0;
  return this;
};

Vec2.prototype.add = function(v, y) {
  if (arguments.length === 1) {
    this.x += v.x;
    this.y += v.y;
  } else {
    this.x += v;
    this.y += y;
  }
  return this;
};

Tests:

Prototype
var v = Vec2(); v.add(1, 1);
No prototype
var v = Vec2(); v.x += 1; v.y += 1;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Prototype
No prototype

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the speed of two approaches:

1. **Prototype chain**: The `Vec2` class has a prototype chain, which means that instances of `Vec2` inherit properties from its parent classes (in this case, none). The benchmark definition includes a line that creates an instance of `Vec2` and calls the `add` method on it.
2. **No prototype chain**: This approach does not use the prototype chain. Instead, it defines a simple object with `x` and `y` properties directly on the global scope.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark is comparing the execution speed of these two approaches:

* Prototype chain: This approach involves creating an instance of `Vec2` and then calling methods on that instance.
* No prototype chain: This approach involves defining a simple object with `x` and `y` properties directly on the global scope, without creating an instance.

**Pros and cons**

Pros of using prototype chains:

* Easier to define methods on instances
* Can be more efficient for certain use cases (e.g., when working with objects that have many methods)
* Can take advantage of JavaScript's method lookup optimization

Cons of using prototype chains:

* Slower due to the overhead of traversing the prototype chain
* May not be suitable for all use cases, such as when performance is critical

Pros of no prototype chain:

* Faster execution speed due to avoiding the overhead of prototype chain traversal
* Suitable for use cases where performance is critical

Cons of no prototype chain:

* Less intuitive and more verbose than using prototype chains
* May require additional boilerplate code (e.g., defining a constructor function)

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines (e.g., V8) may use internal optimizations or heuristics when evaluating functions or expressions.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark does not appear to utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard JavaScript language constructs.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/70.0.3538.77 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 70 on Mac OS X 10.13.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Prototype	0.0 Ops/sec
No prototype	17057108.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Test prototype speed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Prototype vs No prototype

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Prototype

No prototype

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):