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);
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);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
class
function

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

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.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 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

Related benchmarks:

class vs function composition (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: class vs function

Created: one year 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 27 days ago):