Benchmark: Test Destruct - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Destruct
const testObject = { a: 'foo', b: 'bar' }; const { a: newA, b: newB } = testObject;
Normal
const testObject = { a: 'foo', b: 'bar' }; const newA = testObject.a; const newB = testObject.b;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Destruct
Normal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/116.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 116 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Destruct	112452448.0 Ops/sec
Normal	637029056.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark test cases.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark tests two approaches to destructuring an object in JavaScript: the `const { a: newA, b: newB } = testObject;` syntax and the traditional `const newA = testObject.a; const newB = testObject.b;` syntax.

**Approaches Compared**

1. **Destructuring Syntax (with shorthand)**: This approach uses the syntax `const { a: newA, b: newB } = testObject;`, which is a concise way to extract multiple values from an object.
2. **Traditional Destructuring**: This approach uses the traditional syntax `const newA = testObject.a; const newB = testObject.b;`, where each value is assigned to a separate variable.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Destructuring Syntax (with shorthand)**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code
		+ Reduces the number of lines of code, making it easier to maintain
	* Cons:
		+ May be less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with this syntax
		+ Can lead to silent failures if not properly validated (e.g., what happens if `testObject` is null or undefined?)
2. **Traditional Destructuring**:
	* Pros:
		+ More widely supported across different browsers and JavaScript engines
		+ Easier to understand for developers who are familiar with this syntax
	* Cons:
		+ Less concise and more verbose code compared to the destructuring syntax

**Other Considerations**

1. **Library Usage**: Neither of these approaches requires any external libraries or dependencies.
2. **Special JS Features/Syntax**: The `const` keyword, object destructuring, and shorthand syntax (e.g., `newA: newA`) are built-in JavaScript features that do not require special flags or compiler options to enable.

**Other Alternatives**

1. **ES6 Spread Syntax**: Another approach to destructure objects is using the spread operator (`...`), e.g., `const { a, b } = testObject;`. This approach is similar to traditional destructuring but uses a different syntax.
2. **Arrow Functions**: The destructuring syntax with arrow functions (e.g., `([a, b]) => ({ a, b })`) can also be used, although it's not as widely supported or commonly used.

In summary, the benchmark tests two approaches to destructure objects in JavaScript: the concise and readable syntax `const { a: newA, b: newB } = testObject;` and the traditional syntax `const newA = testObject.a; const newB = testObject.b;`. The choice between these approaches depends on personal preference, coding style, and the specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Test Destruct (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Destruct vs Normal

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Destruct

Normal

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):