Benchmark: member lookup via prototype 2

Tests:

Recursive
const getFunction = ( name, obj ) => { const proto = Object.getPrototypeOf( obj ); if( typeof proto !== "object" ) return; // console.log( proto ); return proto[ name ] || getFunction( name, proto ) // const value = proto[ key ]; // if( value !== undefined ) // return value; // return getProtoProp( key )( proto ); } getFunction( "then", Promise.resolve( 5 ) );
Object.create
const getFunction = ( name, obj ) => { const proto = Object.getPrototypeOf( obj ); return Object.create( proto )[ name ]; } getFunction( "then", Promise.resolve( 5 ) );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Recursive
Object.create

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is an object that represents the test case, including:

* `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark ("member lookup via prototype 2")
* `Description`: An empty string (not applicable in this case)
* `Script Preparation Code`: An empty string (no script needs to be prepared before running the test)
* `Html Preparation Code`: An empty string (no HTML preparation is required)

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Recursive**
	* The benchmark definition is a JavaScript function named `getFunction` that takes two arguments: `name` and `obj`. It returns the value of `proto[name]` or recursively calls itself with `proto` as the new `obj`.
	* The function uses the `Object.getPrototypeOf` method to get the prototype of the object `obj`.
	* The test case creates a promise that resolves to 5, and then calls the `getFunction` with the name "then" and the promise as an argument.
2. **Object.create**
	* The benchmark definition is another JavaScript function named `getFunction` that takes two arguments: `name` and `obj`. It returns the result of creating a new object using the `Object.create` method with `proto` as the prototype, and then accessing the `name` property on that object.
	* Like in the Recursive test case, the function uses the `Object.getPrototypeOf` method to get the prototype of the object `obj`.
	* The test case creates a promise that resolves to 5, and then calls the `getFunction` with the name "then" and the promise as an argument.

**Options Compared**

The two test cases compare the performance of two different approaches:

1. **Recursive**: This approach uses recursion to traverse the prototype chain to find the value.
2. **Object.create**: This approach creates a new object using `Object.create` and then accesses the `name` property on that object.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Recursive**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to understand and implement
		- Handles cases where the prototype chain has multiple layers
	+ Cons:
		- May lead to stack overflows for deep prototype chains
		- Can be slower due to the overhead of recursive function calls
* **Object.create**:
	+ Pros:
		- Avoids potential stack overflows and memory issues with recursion
		- Typically faster than recursive approaches
	+ Cons:
		- May require more careful handling of edge cases (e.g., when `proto` is null)
		- Less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with the `Object.create` method

**Library Used**

Neither test case uses any external libraries. The `Object.getPrototypeOf` and `Promise.resolve` methods are part of the standard JavaScript API.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntax used in these benchmark definitions that would require additional explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to add more alternatives to this benchmark, some options could include:

* Using a closure to create a new scope for each recursive call
* Utilizing `Set.prototype.has` instead of accessing properties on objects
* Comparing the performance of different types of objects (e.g., primitive values vs. objects)

However, these alternatives would likely require significant changes to the benchmark definitions and may not be relevant to this specific use case.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the provided benchmark!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/71.0.3569.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 71 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Recursive	541376.8 Ops/sec
Object.create	423884.7 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

member lookup via prototype 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Recursive vs Object.create

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Recursive

Object.create

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):