Benchmark: animal prototype

Script Preparation code:

function animal(){
    this.name = 'rover';
    this.set_name = function(name){
         this.name = name;
    }
}

function animalTwo(){
    this.name = 'rover';
}
animalTwo.prototype.set_name = function(name){
    this.name = name;
}

Tests:

regular
animal();
proto
animalTwo(); animalTwo.prototype.set_name('rover');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regular
proto

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what is being tested on the provided JSON data.

**Script Preparation Code**

The Script Preparation Code defines two functions: `animal` and `animalTwo`. Both functions create an object with a `name` property and a `set_name` method that allows updating the `name` property. The difference between the two functions is that `animalTwo` simply assigns a value to the `name` property, whereas `animal` uses a closure-like pattern to encapsulate the assignment of the `name` property.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Regular**: This approach creates an object with a `name` property and a `set_name` method using the `animal` function.
2. **Proto**: This approach creates an object with a `name` property and a `set_name` method using the `animalTwo` function, which is then prototyped to add the `set_name` method.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Regular**:
	* Pros: May be more efficient since it avoids creating a prototype chain.
	* Cons: The `name` property is not directly accessible on the object, as it's assigned through the closure.
2. **Proto**:
	* Pros: Allows direct access to the `name` property on the object, and creates a prototype chain that can be inherited from.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the creation of the prototype chain.

**Library and Purpose**

In both test cases, no libraries are used explicitly. However, the use of prototypes implies the ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) standard, which introduces a new way of defining objects and their methods using classes and prototypes.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses ES6 syntax features such as:

* Arrow functions (`=>`)
* Template literals (`\r\n`)

These features are not specific to the test case but rather are part of the JavaScript language in general.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare similar benchmarks, here are some alternatives:

1. **ES5**: Compare the performance using ES5 syntax and semantics.
2. **Other browsers or devices**: Test on different browsers (e.g., Chrome, Safari) or devices (e.g., mobile, tablet).
3. **Different object creation methods**: Compare the performance of other object creation methods, such as using constructors (`new`) or array literals.

Keep in mind that each test case should be designed to isolate specific aspects of JavaScript performance and optimize for a particular use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/60.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 60 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regular	2944207.2 Ops/sec
proto	3247685.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

animal prototype (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regular vs proto

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

regular

proto

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):