Benchmark: Compare Performance of some JS Design patterns

Script Preparation code:

function T(i) {
  this.counter = i;
}
  
T.prototype.myMethod = function() {
  if (this.counter == 20000) {
    console.log('Hey T!');
  }
};
  
function Tt(i) {
  this.counter = i;
  this.myMethod = function() {
    if (this.counter == 20000) {
      console.log('Hey Tt!');
    }
  };
}

function factoryPattern(i){
  var counter = i;
  function myMethod() {
    if (counter == 20000) {
      console.log('Hey Factory!');
    }
  }
  return {
    myMethod: myMethod
  }
}

Tests:

Using this
for (var i = 1; i <= 100; i++) { var x = new T(i); x.myMethod(); }
Using prototype
for (var i = 1; i <= 100; i++) { var x = new Tt(i); x.myMethod(); }
Using Factory
for (var i = 1; i <= 100; i++) { var x = factoryPattern(i); x.myMethod(); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Using this
Using prototype
Using Factory

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined to compare the performance of three JavaScript design patterns: Factory, Constructor, and Prototype.

**Options Compared**

1. **Factory Pattern**: This pattern creates objects using a separate function that returns an object with the desired properties.
2. **Constructor Pattern**: This pattern uses constructors to create objects with the desired properties.
3. **Prototype Pattern**: This pattern uses prototypes to inherit properties from a parent object.

The benchmark compares the performance (measured in executions per second) and memory consumption of each pattern when creating and calling a method `myMethod()` on an object that increments a counter until it reaches 20,000.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Factory Pattern**
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for flexible creation of objects with different properties.
		+ Can be used to implement singletons or other complex logic.
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce unnecessary overhead due to the separate creation function.
2. **Constructor Pattern**
	* Pros:
		+ Simplifies object creation and can reduce overhead.
		+ Can be used to implement constructors with default values.
	* Cons:
		+ Limited flexibility in terms of creating objects with different properties.
3. **Prototype Pattern**
	* Pros:
		+ Offers high flexibility in terms of creating objects with inherited properties.
		+ Can be used to implement prototype-based inheritance.
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce overhead due to the creation of new prototypes.

**Library and Purpose**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use external libraries. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines or frameworks might provide built-in support for these design patterns.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ES6 syntax.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Memory Consumption**: The benchmark measures memory consumption to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the performance characteristics.
2. **Browser and Device Support**: The benchmark runs on Firefox 94, but it's likely that other browsers and devices will be tested in future iterations.
3. **Test Environment**: The benchmark is executed in a controlled environment, which may not accurately reflect real-world usage scenarios.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for measuring JavaScript performance could include:

1. WebAssembly (WASM) benchmarks
2. Node.js benchmarking libraries like `benchmark` or `fast-bench`
3. Browser-specific benchmarks, such as Google's V8 benchmark or Microsoft's ChakraCore benchmark

Keep in mind that each alternative has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:94.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/94.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 94 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Using this	755735.7 Ops/sec
Using prototype	471129.1 Ops/sec
Using Factory	1067671.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Compare Performance of some JS Design patterns (version: 0)

Compare performance as well as memory consumed of 3 JS Design Patterns: Factory, Constructor and Prototype

Comparing performance of: Using this vs Using prototype vs Using Factory

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Using this

Using prototype

Using Factory

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):