Benchmark: POJO vs Functions w/ loop

Script Preparation code:

  var x = {
    value		    : 10,
    label		    : 'Codice fiscale ',  
    valueStyle    	: { fontsize: 14 },
    isEmpty	    	: function() { return 0 == 0 },
    isVisible		: true,
    style		    : { xs_width: "100%", sm_width: "50%", xs_marginBottom: 20, sm_paddingRight: 5 },
    otherStuff: [
        { style: {color: "red", xs_width: "100%", sm_width: "50%", xs_marginBottom: 20, sm_paddingRight: 5} , class: "test_" },
        { style: {color: "blue"}, class: "toast_" }
      ]
  };

Tests:

POJO
var y = { value : 10, pkName : "Item", pkKeys : ["Tenant", "IdFirm", "CodItem"], ref : x }; console.log(y);
Function w/ return
var y = function() { return { value : 10, pkName : "Item", pkKeys : ["Tenant", "IdFirm", "CodItem"], ref : x }; } console.log(y());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
POJO
Function w/ return

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The provided JSON represents two different benchmark definitions:

1. **POJO (Plain Old JavaScript Object)**:
	* This is a JavaScript object with various properties (e.g., `value`, `pkName`, `pkKeys`, `ref`) that mimic a real-world object structure.
2. **Function w/ loop**:
	* This is a JavaScript function that returns the same object structure as the POJO.

**Test Cases:**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **POJO**: The benchmark definition uses the POJO syntax to create an object and log it to the console.
2. **Function w/ return**: The benchmark definition uses a function that returns the same object structure as the POJO, with parentheses at the end (`y()`). This creates an instance of the function and logs its result.

**Options Compared:**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

1. **POJO (Plain Old JavaScript Object)**: Using a traditional JavaScript object to create and manipulate data.
2. **Function w/ return**: Using a function that returns the same object structure as the POJO, with parentheses at the end (`y()`).

**Pros/Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **POJO (Plain Old JavaScript Object)**
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to read and understand.
		+ More straightforward syntax.
		+ Can be used for simple object manipulation.
	* Cons:
		+ May not provide performance benefits over more complex data structures.
		+ Can lead to tight coupling between objects.
2. **Function w/ return**
	* Pros:
		+ Encapsulates data and behavior, making it easier to reuse and test.
		+ Can be used for more complex operations, like validation or transformation.
		+ Provides a layer of abstraction, making code more modular.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires additional syntax (`y()` at the end), which can increase readability costs.
		+ May introduce overhead due to function creation and execution.

**Library/Function:**

The `isEmpty` method is used in both benchmark definitions. It's a simple function that checks if two values are equal (`0 == 0`). The purpose of this library/function is to provide a utility function for checking emptiness, which can be useful in various scenarios.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**

There is no explicit mention of special JavaScript features or syntax in the provided benchmark definitions. However, it's worth noting that using `x` as an object reference (`ref x`) might be considered non-standard or unconventional.

**Other Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to these approaches could include:

1. **Classes**: Using classes to create and manipulate objects, which provides a more modern syntax for encapsulation and inheritance.
2. **Prototypes**: Using prototypes to extend and modify object behavior, which provides a flexible way to implement inheritance and polymorphism.
3. **Data Binding**: Using data binding libraries or frameworks that automatically synchronize data between different parts of the application.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly relevant to the specific benchmark being tested, but they demonstrate other ways to approach similar challenges in JavaScript development.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/55.0.2883.87 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 55 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
POJO	968.4 Ops/sec
Function w/ return	1239.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

POJO vs Functions w/ loop (version: 17)

Comparing performance of: POJO vs Function w/ return

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

POJO

Function w/ return

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):