Benchmark: destruct and test vs. property access test for type

Tests:

destructor
let config = {x:1, y:'foo', z: {here:true}}; let a, b, c; function run(conf){ let {x,y,z} = config; if(x && typeof x === 'number'){ a = x; } if(y && typeof y === 'string'){ b = y; } if(z && typeof z === 'object' && z.here){ c = z } } run(config);
old school
let config = {x:1, y:'foo', z: {here:true}}; let a, b, c; function run(conf){ if(conf.x && typeof conf.x === 'number'){ a = conf.x; } if(conf.y && typeof conf.y === 'string'){ b = conf.y; } if(conf.z && typeof conf.z === 'object' && conf.z.here){ c = conf.z } } run(config);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
destructor
old school

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON benchmark defines two test cases:

1. **"destruct and test vs. property access test for type"**: This test case compares the performance of using destruct assignment (`let {x} = config;`) versus traditional property access (`if(typeof config.x === 'string'){}`).
2. **Individual test cases**: These are two separate tests that use different approaches to extract values from an object.

**Options being compared:**

* Destruct assignment (`let {x} = config;`)
* Traditional property access (`if(typeof config.x === 'string'){}`)
* Object destructuring with conditional checks (`if(z && typeof z.here){ c = z }`)

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Destruct assignment (let {x} = config;)**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable code
		+ Reduces the need for explicit type checks
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of creating a new object
2. **Traditional property access (`if(typeof config.x === 'string'){}`))
	* Pros:
		+ Faster, as it avoids the overhead of creating a new object
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose and less readable code
3. **Object destructuring with conditional checks (`if(z && typeof z.here){ c = z }`))
	* Pros:
		+ Balances conciseness with explicit type checks
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of conditional checks

**Libraries and their purposes:**

None mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

1. **Destruct assignment**: This feature is supported by modern JavaScript engines, including Firefox 71.
2. **Object destructuring with conditional checks**: Also supported by modern JavaScript engines, including Firefox 71.

**Other considerations:**

* The use of `run` as a function name for both test cases seems unnecessary and might be an anti-pattern.
* The benchmark results show that the "old school" approach (traditional property access) is faster than the "destructor" approach (destruct assignment with conditional checks).

**Alternatives:**

* Other approaches to extract values from objects, such as using `Object.keys()` or `for...in` loops.
* Alternative ways to structure the benchmark tests, such as using different data structures or testing different scenarios.

Note that this analysis assumes a basic understanding of JavaScript and its features. If you have specific questions or need further clarification on any point, feel free to ask!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:71.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/71.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 71 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
destructor	15362018.0 Ops/sec
old school	17720226.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

destruct and test vs. property access test for type (version: 0)

Use destruct syntax let {x} = config; if(x){} compared to if(typeof config.x === 'string'){}

Comparing performance of: destructor vs old school

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

destructor

old school

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):