Benchmark: opaopa - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

all arrow
class A { hi = () => { return 'Hi' + '!'; } bye = () => { return 'Bye' + '!'; } message = () => { return this.hi() + this.bye(); } } const a = new A(); const message = a.message; message();
all bind
class A { constructor() { this.message = this.message.bind(this); this.hi = this.hi.bind(this); this.bye = this.bye.bind(this); } hi() { return 'Hi' + '!'; } bye() { return 'Bye' + '!'; } message() { return this.hi() + this.bye(); } } const a = new A(); const message = a.message; message();
one arrow
class A { hi() { return 'Hi' + '!'; } bye() { return 'Bye' + '!'; } message = () => { return this.hi() + this.bye(); } } const a = new A(); const message = a.message; message();
one bind
class A { constructor() { this.message = this.message.bind(this); } hi() { return 'Hi' + '!'; } bye() { return 'Bye' + '!'; } message() { return this.hi() + this.bye(); } } const a = new A(); const message = a.message; message();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
all arrow
all bind
one arrow
one bind

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/15.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 15 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
all arrow	2343797.2 Ops/sec
all bind	1325698.5 Ops/sec
one arrow	2907797.5 Ops/sec
one bind	2388257.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is a complex task, and the provided benchmark configuration offers a unique perspective on how different approaches impact execution speed.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests the performance of three variants of a simple class with two methods: `hi()`, `bye()`, and `message()`. The difference between these variants lies in whether the arrow function syntax is used for each method, or if the `bind()` method is used to preserve the context.

**Test Variants**

1. **All Arrow**: This variant uses arrow functions for all methods, including `hi()`, `bye()`, and `message()`.
2. **One Arrow**: This variant uses an arrow function only for the `message()` method, while the other two methods use traditional functions with explicit `this` binding.
3. **One Bind**: This variant uses the `bind()` method to preserve context for all three methods.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **All Arrow**:
	* Pros: Simpler syntax, fewer lines of code, easier to read and maintain.
	* Cons: May lead to slower execution due to additional parsing overhead or binding complexity.
2. **One Arrow**:
	* Pros: Still relatively simple syntax, but with a smaller impact on performance compared to all arrow functions.
	* Cons: Requires careful management of context to avoid issues like `this` ambiguity.
3. **One Bind**:
	* Pros: Preserves context for all methods, avoiding potential issues with `this`.
	* Cons: More verbose syntax, as explicit binding is required for each method.

**Library Usage**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark configuration. However, if we consider the use of JavaScript features like arrow functions and `bind()`, it's worth noting that modern browsers (including Safari 15) have implemented these features to improve performance and readability.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark does not specifically test any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond those mentioned above. However, it's essential to consider other factors that may impact performance in real-world scenarios:

* **Scope and Closure**: The `message()` method relies on the scope of the outer context to access `hi()` and `bye()`. Proper scoping and closure management can significantly affect performance.
* **Method Call Frequency**: The frequency and distribution of method calls within the `message()` function will impact overall performance.

**Other Alternatives**

While this benchmark provides a unique perspective, other alternatives for measuring JavaScript performance include:

1. **V8 Benchmark Suite**: A comprehensive set of benchmarks developed by Google to evaluate V8's performance.
2. **SpiderMonkey Benchmarking Tools**: A collection of tools for testing SpiderMonkey's performance in various scenarios.
3. **Benchmarking Frameworks**: Libraries like Jest or Mocha provide built-in support for running benchmarks and measuring performance.

In summary, the provided benchmark offers a straightforward comparison of three different approaches to implementing class methods in JavaScript. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can better optimize their code for optimal performance.

Related benchmarks:

opaopa (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: all arrow vs all bind vs one arrow vs one bind

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

all arrow

all bind

one arrow

one bind

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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