Benchmark: objct3 vs function3

Script Preparation code:



pr=function(){
    let a=0;
    this.add=()=>{
       a+=1;
    }
}

const pro={
   a:0,
   add(){
     const $=this;
       $.a+=1;
  }
}

const pro2=Object.assign({},pro);
pro2.add2=function(){
	const $=this;
    $.a+=1;
}
let c=0;

Tests:

function
k = new pr(); for(c=0;c<1000;c++){ k.add(); }
object
const ob=Object.assign({},pro); for(c=0;c<1000;c++){ ob.add(); }
object with extern method
const ob2=Object.assign({},pro2); for(c=0;c<1000;c++){ ob2.add2(); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
function
object
object with extern method

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:132.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/132.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 132 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
function	27484.0 Ops/sec
object	95897.9 Ops/sec
object with extern method	95428.9 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark from MeasureThat.net compares different methods of incrementing a counter in JavaScript using three different implementations: a function-based approach, an object-based method, and an object-based method with an external method. Let's explore each approach, their pros and cons, and additional considerations.

### Approaches Tested

1. **Function-based Approach**
   - **Code**: 
     ```javascript
     k = new pr();
     for(c=0; c<1000; c++) {
         k.add();
     }
     ```
   - **Implementation**: This approach utilizes a constructor function `pr` that has an `add` method which modifies a property `a` to count.
   - **Pros**:
     - Simplistic and intuitive.
     - Easy to understand and maintain.
   - **Cons**:
     - Each call to `k.add()` relies on the `this` context, which can lead to errors if not carefully managed (e.g., if used outside the object).
   - **Execution Result**: Executions per second: 27,484.05

2. **Object-based Approach**
   - **Code**: 
     ```javascript
     const ob = Object.assign({}, pro);
     for(c=0; c<1000; c++) {
         ob.add();
     }
     ```
   - **Implementation**: This method creates a new object `ob` using `Object.assign()` from a prototype object `pro`, which contains the `add` method.
   - **Pros**:
     - More organized compared to standalone functions, allowing for encapsulation of state (`a` within the object).
   - **Cons**:
     - Slight overhead in creating an object versus a function call. 
   - **Execution Result**: Executions per second: 95,897.94

3. **Object with External Method**
   - **Code**: 
     ```javascript
     const ob2 = Object.assign({}, pro2);
     for(c=0; c<1000; c++) {
         ob2.add2();
     }
     ```
   - **Implementation**: Similar to the previous approach but utilizes `Object.assign()` to create `ob2` from `pro2`, which includes a method `add2`.
   - **Pros**:
     - Allows for a method defined separately from the initial object, which can offer cleaner code organization in larger applications.
   - **Cons**:
     - The addition of an external method can sometimes reduce readability if overused in simple scenarios.
   - **Execution Result**: Executions per second: 95,428.89

### Comparison of Results

- **Speed**: The object-based approaches (both `ob` and `ob2`) significantly outperform the function-based implementation at approximately three to four times the execution speed. This indicates that direct property access through an object may incur lower overhead than invoking a method that requires an initial context setup.
- **Memory Usage**: The function approach might be lighter in terms of memory if the context does not require maintaining state, while object-based approaches are more effective for larger applications where state management is necessary.

### Other Considerations

1. **Function Invocation Context**: The performance difference can largely be attributed to how JavaScript handles method invocations, with functions requiring a context (this) check compared to direct property access in objects.

2. **Use Cases**: The choice between these approaches may depend on the complexity of the application. Simpler applications may benefit from functional style to avoid unnecessary complexity, while object-oriented programming is favored in larger applications for encapsulation and state management.

### Other Alternatives

- **Using ES6 Classes**: One could implement the same logic using ES6 class syntax, which offers better structure for object-oriented programming.
- **Arrow Functions vs Regular Functions**: Using arrow functions for methods might also come into play, as they lexically bind `this`, simplifying context issues but requiring some additional considerations on functionality.

Overall, each approach has its benefits and trade-offs; developers should consider the performance implications based on their specific application needs and choose the implementation that aligns best with their architectural goals.

Related benchmarks:

objct3 vs function3 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: function vs object vs object with extern method

Created: one month ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

function

object

object with extern method

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one month ago):