Benchmark: Raw object with Closure vs Prototypical Objects

Script Preparation code:

function Foo() {
   'use strict';
   return {
     foo1: 15,
     foo2: 'testing',
     foo3: { i: 1, am: 2, a: 3, literal: 4 },
     foo4: 'testing' + 15,
     doFoo1() {
       this.foo2;
     },
     doFoo2() {
       this.foo1 += 1;
       return this.foo1;
     }
   };
}

preFoo = Foo();

function Bar() {
   this._foo1 = 15;
   this._foo2 = 'testing';
   this._foo3 = { i: 1, am: 2, a: 3, literal: 4 };
   this._foo4 = null;
}

Bar.prototype.doFoo1 = function () {
   return this._foo2;
}

Bar.prototype.doFoo2 = function () {
   this._foo1 += 1;
   return this._foo1;
}

preBar = new Bar();

Tests:

Instantiation - Closure
let foo = Foo();
Instantiation - Prototype
let bar = new Bar();
Utilization - Closure
let baz = preFoo.doFoo2();
Utilization - Prototype
let baz = preBar.doFoo2();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Instantiation - Closure
Instantiation - Prototype
Utilization - Closure
Utilization - Prototype

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what is being tested in this benchmark and the options being compared.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance of two different approaches to create and utilize objects in JavaScript:

1. **Raw Object with Closure**: This approach creates an object using a closure, where the object's properties are defined inside an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE). The object is then instantiated by calling the IIFE.
2. **Prototypical Objects**: This approach creates an object using the `new` keyword and defines its prototype chain.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Raw Object with Closure**: This approach uses a closure to create and define the object's properties, which can lead to faster execution times due to the caching of property accesses.
2. **Prototypical Objects**: This approach uses the `new` keyword and defines the object's prototype chain, which can lead to slower execution times due to the overhead of creating and managing the prototype chain.

**Pros and Cons**

**Raw Object with Closure**

Pros:

* Faster execution times due to caching of property accesses
* Can be more efficient in terms of memory usage

Cons:

* Requires a higher degree of control over object creation and property definition
* May lead to issues with property access and modification if not handled correctly

**Prototypical Objects**

Pros:

* Easier to implement and maintain, as it follows the traditional JavaScript way of creating objects
* Does not require special handling for property access and modification

Cons:

* Slower execution times due to overhead of creating and managing prototype chains
* Can lead to increased memory usage due to the creation of additional prototype objects

**Other Considerations**

One other consideration is the use of `this` context in the closure-based approach. In this case, `this` refers to the object being created, which can lead to unexpected behavior if not handled correctly.

**Library and Purpose**

In this benchmark, the library being used is the JavaScript engine itself (e.g., V8 for Chrome). The purpose of the library is to execute the provided JavaScript code and measure its performance.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that closures can be a powerful tool in JavaScript, but they require careful handling to avoid issues with scope and context.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for creating objects in JavaScript include:

1. **Class-based approach**: This approach uses the `class` keyword to define classes and create objects.
2. **Constructor functions**: This approach uses constructor functions to define objects and their properties.
3. **Object literals**: This approach uses object literals (e.g., `{ foo: 'bar' }`) to define objects.

Each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs in terms of performance, complexity, and maintainability.

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/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/103.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 103 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Instantiation - Closure	12752481.0 Ops/sec
Instantiation - Prototype	10717674.0 Ops/sec
Utilization - Closure	6168658.5 Ops/sec
Utilization - Prototype	6187142.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Raw object with Closure vs Prototypical Objects (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Instantiation - Closure vs Instantiation - Prototype vs Utilization - Closure vs Utilization - Prototype

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Instantiation - Closure

Instantiation - Prototype

Utilization - Closure

Utilization - Prototype

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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