function MyFirstClass (one, two) {
let _one = one;
this.getOne = function () {
console.log(_one);
}
}
const mfc1 = new MyFirstClass(4, 5);
mfc1.getOne();
function MyFirstProtoClass (one, two) {
this._one = one;
}
MyFirstProtoClass.prototype.getOne = function (){
console.log(this.one);
};
const mfpc1 = new MyFirstProtoClass(2, 9);
mfpc1.getOne();
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
closure1 | |
prototype1 |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
closure1 | 49272.7 Ops/sec |
prototype1 | 45492.1 Ops/sec |
I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and some of the considerations.
Benchmark Overview
The benchmark compares two approaches to create a class in JavaScript:
Options Compared
In this benchmark, we have only two options being compared: closure-based and prototype-based classes. Both approaches have their own set of pros and cons:
Library
None of the provided benchmark cases use external libraries. However, the JavaScript syntax used is quite modern, which might suggest that it's using ECMAScript 6 (ES6) or later features.
Special JS Features/Syntax
There are no special JS features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The code uses standard ES5- compatible syntax.
Benchmark Preparation Code
The provided Script Preparation Code
is simply an empty string, which means that the script is expected to be defined inline within the HTML file.
Other Alternatives
If you were to create a similar benchmark, you might consider adding additional options, such as:
class MyFirstClass { ... }
) instead of IIFE-based closures.class
keyword) versus traditional prototype-based classes.To create a benchmark like this, you would need to:
Keep in mind that benchmarking JavaScript performance can be complex, as it involves considering factors like:
When creating a benchmark, it's essential to carefully consider these factors and design your test cases accordingly.