Benchmark: Object.assign vs prototype

Tests:

Extend prototype
String.prototype.toBinary = function () { let output = ''; for (let i = 0; i < this.length; i++) { output += this[i].charCodeAt(0).toString(2) + " "; } return output; } String.prototype.toHex = function () { let output = ''; for (let i = 0; i < this.length; i++) { output += this[i].charCodeAt(0).toString(8) + " "; } return output; } for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { let t = new String("test"); console.log(t.toString(), t.toBinary(), t.toHex()); }
Object.assign
Object.assign(String.prototype, { toBinary() { let output = ''; for (let i = 0; i < this.length; i++) { output += this[i].charCodeAt(0).toString(2) + " "; } return output; }, toHex() { let output = ''; for (let i = 0; i < this.length; i++) { output += this[i].charCodeAt(0).toString(8) + " "; } return output; } }); for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { let t = new String("test"); console.log(t.toString(), t.toBinary(), t.toHex()); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Extend prototype
Object.assign

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures two approaches to adding methods to JavaScript string prototypes:

1. **Extend prototype**: This approach adds new methods `toBinary` and `toHex` directly to the `String.prototype`. The test creates a new `String` object with the value "test" and then calls these methods on it.
2. **Object.assign**: This approach uses the `Object.assign()` method to add properties (methods in this case) to the `String.prototype`. The test creates an object with the same two methods as above and then assigns this object to the `String.prototype` using `Object.assign()`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares these two approaches:

* **Prototype Extension**: Adding methods directly to the `String.prototype`.
	+ Pros:
		- Directly accessible from any JavaScript code.
		- Can be faster since there's no need to search for a property on an object.
	+ Cons:
		- Can lead to namespace pollution if not used carefully.
		- May conflict with existing methods or properties on the prototype chain.
* **Object.assign**: Using `Object.assign()` to add properties to the `String.prototype`.
	+ Pros:
		- Allows for more control over what properties are added and their visibility.
		- Can be useful when working with third-party libraries that modify prototypes.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires a function call (`Object.assign()`) to add properties, which can be slower than direct prototype extension.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There is no library used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that `String.prototype` methods like `toBinary()` and `toHex()` are built-in methods provided by the JavaScript standard library. If you were to use a custom library or implementation for these methods, the results would likely be different.

**Special JS Feature**

There is no special JavaScript feature used in this benchmark. The code is written in standard ECMAScript syntax and doesn't utilize any proprietary features like `let` or `const`, which are newer than the version of JavaScript being tested (likely JavaScript 1.x, given the usage of `String.prototype` methods).

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to add methods to a JavaScript string prototype, other alternatives could include:

* Using a library like Lodash or Underscore.js, which provide utility functions for working with strings and prototypes.
* Implementing your own method adding functionality using a syntax like `String.prototype.addMethod(name, fn)`.
* Using a transpiler like Babel to compile modern JavaScript code that uses newer syntax features, such as arrow functions or classes.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and requirements of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/96.0.4664.45 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Extend prototype	140.9 Ops/sec
Object.assign	140.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Object.assign vs prototype (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Extend prototype vs Object.assign

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Extend prototype

Object.assign

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):