Benchmark: object mixin compare

Script Preparation code:

function test1(mixin) {
  return {
    a: 'a',
    b: 'b',
    c: 'c',
    d: 'd',
    e: 'e',
    f: 'f',
    ...mixin
  };
}

class Test2Class {
  constructor() {
    this.a = 'a';
    this.b = 'b';
    this.c = 'c';
    this.d = 'd';
    this.e = 'e';
    this.f = 'f';
  }
}

Test2Class.prototype.ok = function () {
  return 'ok';
};

function test2() {
  return new Test2Class();
}

​x
 
function test1(mixin) {  return {    a: 'a',    b: 'b',    c: 'c',    d: 'd',    e: 'e',    f: 'f',    ...mixin  };}​class Test2Class {  constructor() {    this.a = 'a';    this.b = 'b';    this.c = 'c';    this.d = 'd';    this.e = 'e';    this.f = 'f';  }}​Test2Class.prototype.ok = function () {  return 'ok';};​function test2() {  return new Test2Class();}

Tests:

test1

const obj1 = test1({ ok: () => 'ok' });
obj1.ok() === 'ok'

 
const obj1 = test1({ ok: () => 'ok' });obj1.ok() === 'ok'

test2
const obj2 = test2(); obj2.ok() === 'ok'
const obj2 = test2();
obj2.ok() === 'ok'

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
test1
test2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/110.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 110 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test1	6940631.0 Ops/sec
test2	30670514.0 Ops/sec

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

Let's dive into the details of this JavaScript microbenchmark.

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to create and use objects with methods. The benchmark is designed to test the execution speed of object creation, method invocation, and comparison.

Options Compared

There are two options being compared:

test1 function: This function creates an object by concatenating a literal object with the mixin parameter using the spread operator (...). It also defines a method ok() on the resulting object.
test2 class: This class creates an instance of itself, which automatically sets up the properties and methods defined in the constructor.

Pros and Cons

test1 function:
- Pros: Simple, concise, and easy to understand. It uses a modern JavaScript feature (spread operator) to create the object.
- Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new function instance.
test2 class:
- Pros: More concise than creating an object using the spread operator, as it leverages the built-in behavior of classes and constructors.
- Cons: Might be less efficient in older browsers that don't support modern class syntax.

Library

None. This benchmark doesn't use any external libraries or frameworks.

Special JS Feature

Yes, the test1 function uses a special JavaScript feature called the spread operator (...). The spread operator was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and allows for concise object creation by expanding an array-like object into new objects. While widely supported, older browsers might not have this feature enabled.

Other Considerations

When creating objects with methods using these approaches:

In modern JavaScript environments, both test1 and test2 will produce similar performance results.
Older browsers that don't support the spread operator or modern class syntax might perform worse with test1.
The benchmark only tests the execution speed of object creation, method invocation, and comparison. Other factors like memory allocation, garbage collection, or caching might affect performance in different scenarios.

Alternatives

Other alternatives to these approaches could include:

Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming patterns, which can simplify object creation and manipulation.
Employing prototype chaining to create objects with methods in a more concise manner.
Leveraging the Object.create() method to clone existing objects and add new properties.

However, these alternatives might not be as straightforward or efficient as using a simple function like test1 or defining a class like test2.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the details of this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`test1` function**: This function creates an object by concatenating a literal object with the `mixin` parameter using the spread operator (`...`). It also defines a method `ok()` on the resulting object.
2. **`test2` class**: This class creates an instance of itself, which automatically sets up the properties and methods defined in the constructor.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`test1` function**:
	* Pros: Simple, concise, and easy to understand. It uses a modern JavaScript feature (spread operator) to create the object.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new function instance.
2. **`test2` class**:
	* Pros: More concise than creating an object using the spread operator, as it leverages the built-in behavior of classes and constructors.
	* Cons: Might be less efficient in older browsers that don't support modern class syntax.

**Library**

None. This benchmark doesn't use any external libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS Feature**

Yes, the `test1` function uses a special JavaScript feature called the spread operator (`...`). The spread operator was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and allows for concise object creation by expanding an array-like object into new objects. While widely supported, older browsers might not have this feature enabled.

**Other Considerations**

When creating objects with methods using these approaches:

* In modern JavaScript environments, both `test1` and `test2` will produce similar performance results.
* Older browsers that don't support the spread operator or modern class syntax might perform worse with `test1`.
* The benchmark only tests the execution speed of object creation, method invocation, and comparison. Other factors like memory allocation, garbage collection, or caching might affect performance in different scenarios.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to these approaches could include:

* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming patterns, which can simplify object creation and manipulation.
* Employing prototype chaining to create objects with methods in a more concise manner.
* Leveraging the `Object.create()` method to clone existing objects and add new properties.

However, these alternatives might not be as straightforward or efficient as using a simple function like `test1` or defining a class like `test2`.

Related benchmarks:

object mixin compare (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result