Benchmark: Long and dynamic Inheritance => Prototype vs Object Literal - v2

Tests:

Function Prototype
function Point(x, y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; } const pointParent = { add(point) { return new Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y); } }; const pointParentParent = { sub(point) { return new Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y); } }; Object.setPrototypeOf(pointParent, pointParentParent); Point.prototype = pointParent; var p1 = new Point(10, 10); var p2 = new Point(10, -10); var sum = p1.add(p2); var dif = p1.sub(p2);
Object Literal
const pointParent = { add(point) { return pointNew(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y); } }; const pointParentParent = { sub(point) { return pointNew(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y); } }; Object.setPrototypeOf(pointParent, pointParentParent); function pointNew (x, y) { let p = { x:x, y:y } Object.setPrototypeOf(p, pointParent); return p } let a1 = pointNew(10, 10); let a2 = pointNew(10, -10); let sum = a1.add(a2); let dif = a1.sub(a2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Function Prototype
Object Literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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/106.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 106 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Function Prototype	438241.3 Ops/sec
Object Literal	278029.9 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to inheritance in JavaScript:

1. **Prototype-based Inheritance**: This approach uses the `Object.setPrototypeOf()` method to set the prototype of an object, effectively creating a new inheritance hierarchy.
2. **Object Literal-based Inheritance**: This approach uses object literals to create a new object that inherits from another object.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Function Prototype**: This test case creates a `Point` function with a prototype that inherits from another `Point` function using `Object.setPrototypeOf()`. It then tests the `add()` and `sub()` methods on an instance of this inherited function.
2. **Object Literal**: This test case creates two object literals, `pointParent` and `pointParentParent`, where `pointParent` has an `add()` method that returns a new `Point` object with updated x and y coordinates. The `pointParentParent` object has a `sub()` method that also returns a new `Point` object. It then tests the `add()` and `sub()` methods on instances of these objects.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. **Prototype-based Inheritance**: This approach uses `Object.setPrototypeOf()` to create an inheritance hierarchy.
2. **Object Literal-based Inheritance**: This approach uses object literals to create a new object that inherits from another object.

**Pros and Cons**

**Prototype-based Inheritance:**

Pros:

* More flexible and dynamic, as it allows for easy modification of the prototype chain.
* Can be faster, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new object literal.

Cons:

* Can lead to more complex code and harder-to-debug issues if not used carefully.
* May have performance implications due to the overhead of `Object.setPrototypeOf()`.

**Object Literal-based Inheritance:**

Pros:

* Easier to read and understand, as it uses familiar object-literal syntax.
* May be faster, as it avoids the overhead of `Object.setPrototypeOf()`.

Cons:

* Less flexible and dynamic, as it's limited by the structure of the object literals.
* May lead to more boilerplate code and harder-to-debug issues if not used carefully.

**Libraries Used**

In this benchmark, no specific libraries are mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript frameworks or libraries may use these approaches differently or provide additional features that affect performance.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for inheritance in JavaScript include:

* **Class-based Inheritance**: This approach uses classes and constructors to define a new class that inherits from an existing class.
* **Mixin-based Inheritance**: This approach uses object literals with `Object.assign()` to merge properties from multiple objects, effectively creating a mixin that can be applied to other objects.

These alternatives have their own trade-offs in terms of flexibility, performance, and code readability.

Related benchmarks:

Long and dynamic Inheritance => Prototype vs Object Literal - v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Function Prototype vs Object Literal

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Function Prototype

Object Literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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