Benchmark: prototype function

Script Preparation code:

function s(obj){}

function C1() { 
    this.c = 0;
}
C1.prototype.test = function () { 
    this.c++;
}

function C2() { 
    this.c = 0;
    this.test = function () { 
        this.c++;
    }
}

var c1 = new C1();
var c2 = new C2();

Tests:

c1.test();
c1.test();
c2.test();
c2.test();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
c1.test();
c2.test();

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined using a JSON object, which includes:

* `Name`: The name of the benchmark, in this case, "prototype function".
* `Description`: An empty string, indicating that no detailed description is available for this benchmark.
* `Script Preparation Code`:
	+ This section contains two JavaScript functions: `s(obj)` and the definition of classes `C1` and `C2`. These classes have a commonality in that they create an instance with a property `c` and a method `test`, which increments the value of `c`.
* `Html Preparation Code`: An empty string, indicating that no HTML code is necessary for this benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. `c1.test();`
2. `c2.test();`

These test cases are defined by providing a specific JavaScript statement to execute within the context of each class (`C1` and `C2`, respectively).

**Comparison of Options**

In this case, the options being compared are the performance differences between executing a standalone method versus creating an instance of a class with a specific method:

* **Standalone Method**: In `c1.test();`, we execute the `test()` method directly on the global object (i.e., `this` is not explicitly defined). This option might be faster, as it eliminates the overhead of creating an instance and binding the method to that instance.
* **Instance-Based Method**: In `c2.test();`, we create an instance of class `C1` or `C2` and execute the `test()` method on that instance. This option includes the overhead of object creation, binding the method to the instance, and accessing the instance's properties.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Standalone Method**: Pros:
	+ Potential performance gain due to reduced overhead.
	+ Simplicity and conciseness.
* Cons:
	+ May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where objects are used extensively.
	+ Might lead to unexpected behavior if the global object is modified unexpectedly.
* **Instance-Based Method**:
	+ More realistic representation of common JavaScript use cases, especially in object-oriented programming.
	+ Allows for easier modification and extension of the code being benchmarked.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines might have their own internal libraries or optimizations that could affect the execution time of these benchmarks.

**Special JS Features**

There are a few special JavaScript features used here:

* **Classes and Prototypes**: The `C1` and `C2` classes demonstrate how to define constructors and prototype methods in JavaScript.
* **this keyword**: In both test cases, `this` is implicitly bound to the global object or the instance of the class. This syntax highlights how `this` works when defining functions within a constructor.

**Alternatives**

If this benchmark were to be rewritten for different programming languages or environments, here are some alternatives that might be explored:

* ** compiled languages**: For languages like C++, Java, or Rust, you would likely use object-oriented programming concepts but with more explicit control over memory management and performance optimization.
* **Functional programming languages**: Languages like Haskell or Scala might use different paradigms, such as immutable data structures and higher-order functions, to compare the execution times of similar tasks.
* **Multi-paradigm languages**: Languages that support multiple programming paradigms, such as Python or Ruby, could potentially be used to compare the performance of object-oriented vs. functional coding styles.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/54.0.2840.59 Safari/537.36 OPR/41.0.2353.46

Browser/OS: Opera 41 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
c1.test();	11010402.0 Ops/sec
c2.test();	11176119.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

prototype function (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: c1.test(); vs c2.test();

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

c1.test();

c2.test();

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):