Benchmark: ES6 Class vs Prototype vs Object Literal

Tests:

ES6 Class

class Point {
	constructor(x, y){
		this.x = x;
		this.y = y;
    }

	add(point){
		return new Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y);
    }

	sub(point){
		return new Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y);
    }
}

var p1 = new Point(10, 10);
var p2 = new Point(10, -10);
var sum = p1.add(p2);
var dif = p1.sub(p2);

​x
 
class Point {    constructor(x, y){        this.x = x;        this.y = y;    }​    add(point){        return new Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y);    }​    sub(point){        return new Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y);    }}​var p1 = new Point(10, 10);var p2 = new Point(10, -10);var sum = p1.add(p2);var dif = p1.sub(p2);

Function Prototype

function Point(x, y){
	this.x = x;
	this.y = y;
}

Point.prototype.add = function(point){
    return new Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y);
}

Point.prototype.sub = function(point){
	return new Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y);
}

var p1 = new Point(10, 10);
var p2 = new Point(10, -10);
var sum = p1.add(p2);
var dif = p1.sub(p2);

 
function Point(x, y){    this.x = x;    this.y = y;}​Point.prototype.add = function(point){    return new Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y);}​Point.prototype.sub = function(point){    return new Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y);}​var p1 = new Point(10, 10);var p2 = new Point(10, -10);var sum = p1.add(p2);var dif = p1.sub(p2);​

Object Literal

function Point(x, y){
	return {
      	x, 
      	y, 
      	add: (point)=>Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y),
	 	sub: (point)=>Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y)
    }  
}

var p1 = Point(10, 10);
var p2 = Point(10, -10);
var sum = p1.add(p2);
var dif = p1.sub(p2);

 
function Point(x, y){    return {        x,         y,         add: (point)=>Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y),        sub: (point)=>Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y)    }  }​var p1 = Point(10, 10);var p2 = Point(10, -10);var sum = p1.add(p2);var dif = p1.sub(p2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
ES6 Class
Function Prototype
Object Literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: yesterday)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ES6 Class	1236791.9 Ops/sec
Function Prototype	998467.5 Ops/sec
Object Literal	2826506.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

Benchmark Overview

The benchmark compares three different approaches for constructing class objects in JavaScript:

ES6 Class (Constructor Function)
Function Prototype
Object Literal

Options Compared

The benchmark measures the speed and memory usage of each approach.
Each option is compared on a specific test case, which involves creating two Point objects with different coordinates, performing addition and subtraction operations using these objects.

Pros and Cons of Each Approach

ES6 Class (Constructor Function):
- Pros: Encapsulates data and behavior in a single unit, easier to read and maintain.
- Cons: May have overhead due to the syntax and the need for explicit this binding.
Function Prototype:
- Pros: Lightweight, fast, and flexible. Can be used as a mixin or inheritance mechanism.
- Cons: Requires manual management of prototype chaining and method implementation.
Object Literal:
- Pros: Minimalist, concise, and often preferred for simple objects.
- Cons: May lack encapsulation and behavior organization, requires explicit property access.

Library Used

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark. However, the Point class definition uses a common pattern for prototypal inheritance, where methods are defined on the prototype object rather than an instance.

Special JS Feature/ Syntax

The benchmark uses ES6 features such as classes (ES6 Class), function prototypes (Function Prototype), and template literals (Object Literal). These features provide concise syntax for creating objects, but may not be compatible with older browsers or environments that don't support them.

Other Alternatives

If you need to compare other approaches for constructing class objects in JavaScript, consider the following alternatives:

Prototype Chain: Instead of using a constructor function, you can create a prototype chain by setting up an object as a prototype and then referencing it from another object.
Class Factory Functions: Use a factory function to create instances of a class. This approach provides a balance between encapsulation and flexibility.
Object-Oriented Frameworks: Utilize JavaScript frameworks like React, Angular, or Vue.js, which provide built-in support for classes and object-oriented programming.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the best choice depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three different approaches for constructing class objects in JavaScript:

1. ES6 Class (Constructor Function)
2. Function Prototype
3. Object Literal

**Options Compared**

* The benchmark measures the speed and memory usage of each approach.
* Each option is compared on a specific test case, which involves creating two `Point` objects with different coordinates, performing addition and subtraction operations using these objects.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **ES6 Class (Constructor Function)**:
	* Pros: Encapsulates data and behavior in a single unit, easier to read and maintain.
	* Cons: May have overhead due to the syntax and the need for explicit `this` binding.
2. **Function Prototype**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, fast, and flexible. Can be used as a mixin or inheritance mechanism.
	* Cons: Requires manual management of prototype chaining and method implementation.
3. **Object Literal**:
	* Pros: Minimalist, concise, and often preferred for simple objects.
	* Cons: May lack encapsulation and behavior organization, requires explicit property access.

**Library Used**

There is no library explicitly mentioned in the benchmark. However, the `Point` class definition uses a common pattern for prototypal inheritance, where methods are defined on the prototype object rather than an instance.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to compare other approaches for constructing class objects in JavaScript, consider the following alternatives:

* **Prototype Chain**: Instead of using a constructor function, you can create a prototype chain by setting up an object as a prototype and then referencing it from another object.
* **Class Factory Functions**: Use a factory function to create instances of a class. This approach provides a balance between encapsulation and flexibility.
* **Object-Oriented Frameworks**: Utilize JavaScript frameworks like React, Angular, or Vue.js, which provide built-in support for classes and object-oriented programming.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the best choice depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

ES6 Class vs Prototype vs Object Literal (version: 0)

Test the speed and memory usage using 3 different techniques for constructing class objects.

Comparing performance of: ES6 Class vs Function Prototype vs Object Literal

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result