Benchmark: class vs function composition

Tests:

class

class A {
  a() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
  a1() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
  a2() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
  a3() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
  a4() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
  a5() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
}

class B {
  constructor(a) {
  	this.a = new A();
  }
  a() {
    return this.a.a();
  }
  a1() {
    return this.a.a1();
  }
  a2() {
    return this.a.a2();
  }
}

class C {
  constructor(a) {
  	this.a = new A();
  }
  a3() {
    return this.a.a3();
  }
  a4() {
    return this.a.a4();
  }
  a5() {
    return this.a.a5();
  }
}
// var a = new A();
var b = new B();
var c = new C();
console.log('class', b.a.a === c.a.a);

​x
 
class A {  a() {    return { a: 1 };  }  a1() {    return { a: 1 };  }  a2() {    return { a: 1 };  }  a3() {    return { a: 1 };  }  a4() {    return { a: 1 };  }  a5() {    return { a: 1 };  }}​class B {  constructor(a) {    this.a = new A();  }  a() {    return this.a.a();  }  a1() {    return this.a.a1();  }  a2() {    return this.a.a2();  }}​class C {  constructor(a) {    this.a = new A();  }  a3() {    return this.a.a3();  }  a4() {    return this.a.a4();  }  a5() {    return this.a.a5();  }}// var a = new A();var b = new B();var c = new C();console.log('class', b.a.a === c.a.a);

function


ar = () => ({
  a() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
})
ar1 = () => ({
  a1() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
})
ar2 = () => ({
  a2() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
})
ar3 = () => ({
  a3() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
})
ar4 = () => ({
  a4() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
})
ar5 = () => ({
  a5() {
    return { a: 1 };
  }
})

function B1() {
  return Object.assign({}, ar(), ar1(), ar2());
}

function C1() {
  return Object.assign({}, ar(), ar4(), ar5());
}

var b = B1();
var c = C1();
console.log('function', b.a === c.a);

 
​​ar = () => ({  a() {    return { a: 1 };  }})ar1 = () => ({  a1() {    return { a: 1 };  }})ar2 = () => ({  a2() {    return { a: 1 };  }})ar3 = () => ({  a3() {    return { a: 1 };  }})ar4 = () => ({  a4() {    return { a: 1 };  }})ar5 = () => ({  a5() {    return { a: 1 };  }})​function B1() {  return Object.assign({}, ar(), ar1(), ar2());}​function C1() {  return Object.assign({}, ar(), ar4(), ar5());}​var b = B1();var c = C1();console.log('function', b.a === c.a);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
class
function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
class	49702.9 Ops/sec
function	84216.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

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

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark compares two approaches to create and use objects in JavaScript:

Class Composition: This approach uses classes (inherently) to create objects and instances of those classes. The class keyword is used to define a blueprint for creating objects, which can then be instantiated.
Function Composition: This approach uses functions to create objects and instances of those functions. In this case, five separate functions (ar, ar1, ar2, ar3, and ar5) are defined, each returning an object with a specific structure.

Options Being Compared

The two options being compared are:

Class Composition: This approach creates objects using the class keyword, which is then instantiated to create instances.
Function Composition: This approach defines five separate functions (ar, ar1, ar2, ar3, and ar5) that return objects with specific structures.

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

Class Composition:

Pros:

Easier to read and understand, especially for complex object hierarchies
Encourages encapsulation and modularity
Can be more efficient due to compiler optimizations

Cons:

More verbose than function composition
May lead to over-engineering or unnecessary complexity if not used carefully

Function Composition:

Pros:

Less verbose than class composition, making it easier to write and maintain small functions
Provides more flexibility in terms of reuse and modularization

Cons:

Can lead to tight coupling between functions and make the code harder to understand
May result in slower performance due to function call overhead

Other Considerations

The benchmark also includes the use of Object.assign() to concatenate objects. This can affect performance, as it involves creating a new object by merging multiple objects.

Library Usage (None)

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark.

Special JavaScript Features/ Syntax (None)

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard language specification.

Alternative Approaches

Other approaches to create and use objects could be considered, such as:

Prototype-based programming: This approach uses prototypes to define object behavior, rather than classes.
Object literal notation: This approach uses object literals (e.g., {a: 1}) to define simple objects.
Modules and ES6 Classes: This approach uses ES6 modules and the class keyword to define complex object hierarchies.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics, readability, and maintainability trade-offs compared to class composition and function composition.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to create and use objects in JavaScript:

1. **Class Composition**: This approach uses classes (inherently) to create objects and instances of those classes. The `class` keyword is used to define a blueprint for creating objects, which can then be instantiated.
2. **Function Composition**: This approach uses functions to create objects and instances of those functions. In this case, five separate functions (`ar`, `ar1`, `ar2`, `ar3`, and `ar5`) are defined, each returning an object with a specific structure.

**Options Being Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Class Composition**: This approach creates objects using the `class` keyword, which is then instantiated to create instances.
2. **Function Composition**: This approach defines five separate functions (`ar`, `ar1`, `ar2`, `ar3`, and `ar5`) that return objects with specific structures.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Class Composition:**

Pros:

* Easier to read and understand, especially for complex object hierarchies
* Encourages encapsulation and modularity
* Can be more efficient due to compiler optimizations

Cons:

* More verbose than function composition
* May lead to over-engineering or unnecessary complexity if not used carefully

**Function Composition:**

Pros:

* Less verbose than class composition, making it easier to write and maintain small functions
* Provides more flexibility in terms of reuse and modularization

Cons:

* Can lead to tight coupling between functions and make the code harder to understand
* May result in slower performance due to function call overhead

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also includes the use of `Object.assign()` to concatenate objects. This can affect performance, as it involves creating a new object by merging multiple objects.

**Library Usage (None)**

There are no external libraries used in this benchmark.

**Special JavaScript Features/ Syntax (None)**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard language specification.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches to create and use objects could be considered, such as:

* **Prototype-based programming**: This approach uses prototypes to define object behavior, rather than classes.
* **Object literal notation**: This approach uses object literals (e.g., `{a: 1}`) to define simple objects.
* **Modules and ES6 Classes**: This approach uses ES6 modules and the `class` keyword to define complex object hierarchies.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different performance characteristics, readability, and maintainability trade-offs compared to class composition and function composition.

Related benchmarks:

class vs function composition (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: class vs function

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

class

function

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):