Benchmark: Object.setPrototypeOf vs Object literal

Script Preparation code:

let object;

Tests:

Object.setPrototypeOf
object = Object.setPrototypeOf({a:1},null);
Object literal
object = {a:1};

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.setPrototypeOf
Object literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/116.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 116 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Object.setPrototypeOf	6645574.5 Ops/sec
Object literal	14202606.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net!

**What is tested?**

The provided benchmark tests the performance difference between two approaches to create an object in JavaScript:

1. **Object literal**: Creating an object directly using curly brackets `{}` and assigning properties (`object = {a:1};`).
2. **Object.setPrototypeOf**: Using the `Object.setPrototypeOf()` method to set the prototype of an empty object, effectively creating a new object with no prototype chain (`object = Object.setPrototypeOf({a:1}, null);`).

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares these two approaches to create an object. The options are:

* `Object literal`: Creating an object using curly brackets and assigning properties.
* `Object.setPrototypeOf`: Using the `Object.setPrototypeOf()` method to set the prototype of an empty object.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Object Literal**
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to read and understand for developers familiar with object creation.
		+ Typically faster and more efficient, as it avoids the overhead of setting a prototype chain.
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to slower performance if used in a large number of iterations or complex scenarios.
2. **Object.setPrototypeOf**
	* Pros:
		+ Can be useful when working with complex inheritance hierarchies or need to set a custom prototype for an object.
	* Cons:
		+ Often slower and less efficient than the object literal approach, as it involves setting a prototype chain.

**Library and its purpose**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library mentioned. However, the `Object.setPrototypeOf()` method is a built-in JavaScript function that sets the prototype of an object.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no specific special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to create an object in JavaScript without using these two approaches, some alternative methods include:

* Using the `new` keyword with a constructor function (e.g., `object = new MyConstructor()`)
* Utilizing libraries like Lodash's `createObject()` or Object.create()
* Employing other creative methods, such as creating an array and then assigning properties to it (`object = [{a: 1}];`)

However, these alternatives are not part of the original benchmark and may not be relevant to the specific comparison being made.

The MeasureThat.net website provides a useful resource for understanding how different JavaScript techniques and libraries affect performance. By comparing these two approaches, users can gain insights into the trade-offs between object creation methods in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Object.setPrototypeOf vs Object literal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.setPrototypeOf vs Object literal

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.setPrototypeOf

Object literal

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):