In this benchmark, two approaches for determining values associated with classes are compared: polymorphism using methods and a switch statement. The purpose is to evaluate their performance in terms of execution speed.

Approaches Being Compared

1. Polymorphism (with methods)

   • Description: In this approach, each class has a method GetImportantValue() that returns its respective value. The polymorphic behavior allows the code to call the method directly without needing to know the type of class at the time of calling.
   • How it works: The benchmark makes calls to getImportantValuePolymorphism for each class (class1 to class5). The function simply invokes the method GetImportantValue() of each class.

2. Switch Statement

   • Description: This approach uses a switch statement to determine which function to call based on an enumeration type passed to it. Each class is represented by a type string, and a corresponding function is called in the switch based on that string.
   • How it works: The benchmark executes the getImportantValueSwitch function, passing an object containing a type property (like 'MyClass1', 'MyClass2', etc.) which directs the program flow to the correct case in the switch block.

Results

• Polymorphism achieved 4,459,813 executions per second.
• Switch achieved 2,767,863.5 executions per second.

Pros and Cons

Polymorphism Pros:

• Readability and Maintainability: The code is easier to read and maintain because it leverages object-oriented programming principles.
• Extensibility: Adding more classes simply requires creating new classes with the method without changing existing code.

Polymorphism Cons:

• Overhead: There may be a slight performance overhead due to method lookups, depending on the JavaScript engine's optimizations.

Switch Pros:

• Simplicity for Predictable Cases: The use of switch is straightforward in scenarios with a limited, well-defined set of types.
• Potentially Faster: For small sets of possible cases, it can be faster since there’s no method resolution overhead.

Switch Cons:

• Harder to Maintain: Adding a new type necessitates modifying the switch statement, which can introduce bugs and complicate future maintenance.
• Longer Code: It can lead to verbose code compared to a polymorphic approach, especially with larger numbers of classes.

Other Considerations

• Performance Variability: Performance can vary based on the JavaScript engine (like V8 in Chrome or SpiderMonkey in Firefox) and how it optimizes code execution, making benchmarking context-specific.
• Use Case: Choice of approach should depend on use case: polymorphism serves better in systems designed for extensibility, while switch may suffice in simpler cases.

Libraries and Features

In this benchmark, no special JavaScript libraries or features are utilized beyond basic functions and structures. The benchmark mainly uses core JavaScript syntax and capabilities.

Alternatives

• Strategy Pattern: Use a more advanced design pattern like the Strategy pattern, which allows for switching between algorithms or behaviors at runtime by encapsulating the variations in separate classes.
• Lookup Tables: Using an object literal as a registry for functions could provide a balance between speed and maintainability, reducing the need for conditionals altogether.

In conclusion, this JavaScript benchmark serves to evaluate two common methods for value retrieval through classes, showcasing the trade-offs between simplicity and optimization in code design. Each method has its unique strengths and weaknesses that can significantly affect performance depending on use cases.