Benchmark: ES6 Class vs Prototype vs Object Literal vs Object & Functions 2

Tests:

ES6 Class
class Point { constructor(x, y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; } add(point){ return new Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y); } sub(point){ return new Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y); } } var p1 = new Point(10, 10); var p2 = new Point(10, -10); var sum = p1.add(p2); var dif = p1.sub(p2);
Function Prototype
function Point(x, y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; } Point.prototype.add = function(point){ return new Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y); } Point.prototype.sub = function(point){ return new Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y); } var p1 = new Point(10, 10); var p2 = new Point(10, -10); var sum = p1.add(p2); var dif = p1.sub(p2);
Object Literal
function Point(x, y){ return { x, y, add: (point)=>Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y), sub: (point)=>Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y) } } var p1 = Point(10, 10); var p2 = Point(10, -10); var sum = p1.add(p2); var dif = p1.sub(p2);
Object & Functions
const point = (x, y) => ({ x, y }); const add = (a, b) => ({ x: a.x + b.x, y: a.y + b.y }); const sub = (a, b) => ({ x: a.x - b.x, y: a.y - b.y }); var p1 = point(10, 10); var p2 = point(10, -10); var sum = add(p1, p2); var dif = sub(p1, p2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ES6 Class
Function Prototype
Object Literal
Object & Functions

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark and explore what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of four different techniques for constructing class objects in JavaScript:

1. **ES6 Class**: Using the `class` keyword to define a class.
2. **Function Prototype**: Defining methods on an existing function using prototypal inheritance.
3. **Object Literal**: Creating an object with shorthand syntax, including functions as properties.
4. **Object & Functions**: Similar to Object Literal, but using arrow functions instead.

**Options Comparison**

Each technique has its pros and cons:

* **ES6 Class**:
	+ Pros: Encapsulates data and behavior in a single unit, easy to read and maintain.
	+ Cons: Can lead to over-engineering, slower performance due to the overhead of class creation.
* **Function Prototype**:
	+ Pros: Fast and lightweight, allows for easy extension and customization.
	+ Cons: Requires manual management of prototypes, can lead to confusing code structure.
* **Object Literal**:
	+ Pros: Concise and expressive syntax, easy to read and write.
	+ Cons: Can be brittle if methods are not properly defined or accessed.
* **Object & Functions**:
	+ Pros: Similar to Object Literal, with the added benefit of using arrow functions for concise method definitions.
	+ Cons: May be less readable than other options, requires careful management of variable scope.

**Library and Syntax**

In this benchmark, no libraries are used. The tests focus solely on the syntax and performance differences between these four techniques.

However, if we were to expand this benchmark to include libraries or additional features, some considerations might come into play:

* **ES6 Classes with Lodash**: If a library like Lodash is used to extend the class, the performance implications could be different.
* **Function Prototype with Proxy**: Using Proxies on top of Function Prototype methods could alter the performance characteristics.

**Special JS Features**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are explicitly being tested in this benchmark. The focus remains on the four techniques for constructing class objects.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for constructing class objects in JavaScript include:

* **Module-based Classes**: Using ES6 modules to define classes, which can provide better organization and reusability.
* **Class Factory Functions**: Using function expressions to create classes, which can offer more flexibility and control over the class definition process.
* **Closures**: Using closures to encapsulate data and behavior in a single unit, which can provide similar benefits to ES6 Classes but with different syntax.

Keep in mind that this benchmark primarily focuses on the performance differences between these four techniques, rather than exploring alternative approaches or libraries.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ES6 Class	552347.7 Ops/sec
Function Prototype	335312.1 Ops/sec
Object Literal	1600972.9 Ops/sec
Object & Functions	1139481728.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

ES6 Class vs Prototype vs Object Literal vs Object & Functions 2 (version: 0)

Test the speed and memory usage using 4 different techniques for constructing class objects.

Comparing performance of: ES6 Class vs Function Prototype vs Object Literal vs Object & Functions

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ES6 Class

Function Prototype

Object Literal

Object & Functions

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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