Benchmark: ES6 Class vs Prototype vs Object Literal (modified)

Tests:

ES6 Class
class Point { constructor(x, y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; } } function add(p1, p2) { return new Point(p1.x + p2.x, p1.y + p2.y); } function sub(p1, p2) { return new Point(p1.x - p2.x, p1.y - p2.y); } var p1 = new Point(10, 10); var p2 = new Point(10, -10); var sum = add(p1, p2); var dif = sub(p1, p2);
Function Prototype
function Point(x, y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; } function add(p1, p2) { return new Point(p1.x + p2.x, p1.y + p2.y); } function sub(p1, p2) { return new Point(p1.x - p2.x, p1.y - p2.y); } var p1 = new Point(10, 10); var p2 = new Point(10, -10); var sum = add(p1, p2); var dif = sub(p1, p2);
Object Literal
function add(p1, p2) { return Point(p1.x + p2.x, p1.y + p2.y); } function sub(p1, p2) { return Point(p1.x - p2.x, p1.y - p2.y); } function Point(x, y){ return { x, y, } } var p1 = Point(10, 10); var p2 = Point(10, -10); var sum = add(p1, p2); var dif = sub(p1, p2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ES6 Class
Function Prototype
Object Literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ES6 Class	724398.0 Ops/sec
Function Prototype	709090.9 Ops/sec
Object Literal	67524656.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark under consideration aims to evaluate the performance of three different JavaScript techniques for constructing class-like objects: ES6 classes, function prototypes, and object literals. The primary focus is on measuring the speed (in terms of executions per second) and potentially memory usage, although the provided results do not explicitly include memory consumption metrics.

### Benchmark Options

1. **ES6 Class**:
   - **Definition**: This approach uses the ES6 class syntax to define a class named `Point`. It utilizes a constructor method to initialize `x` and `y` properties.
   - **Pros**:
     - Cleaner syntax and structure, which can improve readability and maintainability of the code.
     - Inherits methods through the prototype chain, leading to efficient reuse of methods.
   - **Cons**:
     - Some overhead due to the additional syntactic sugar involved in defining classes and methods, potentially impacting performance compared to more straightforward approaches.
   
2. **Function Prototype**:
   - **Definition**: In this method, a constructor function `Point` is defined that sets properties directly on `this`. It relies on JavaScript's prototype system for method inheritance.
   - **Pros**:
     - More traditional approach familiar to older JavaScript developers.
     - Slight performance advantage over ES6 classes due to more direct manipulation of objects without additional syntax.
   - **Cons**:
     - Less readable and can lead to more complex inheritance if more layers are added, disrupting code maintainability.

3. **Object Literal**:
   - **Definition**: This method uses a simple function to return an object literal that encapsulates `x` and `y` directly without the use of `this`.
   - **Pros**:
     - Very straightforward and easy to understand. Ideal for lightweight structures or use cases where instances don’t need to inherit behavior.
     - Could have the highest performance among the three options because it avoids the overhead of instantiation.
   - **Cons**:
     - It does not support method inheritance and may lead to duplication of logic if behavior needs to be shared across multiple instances.
     - Limited in terms of object-oriented patterns compared to the other two paradigms.

### Benchmark Results Summary

- The results illustrate that the **Object Literal** approach has the highest execution speed, with approximately 67 million executions per second.
- The **ES6 Class** approach exhibits significantly lower performance, with around 724,000 executions per second, while the **Function Prototype** method follows closely behind it with about 709,000 executions.
- These performance differences may suggest that for lightweight objects without the need for method inheritance, using an object literal could be preferable in performance-critical applications. However, if you require more complex structures and behaviors, ES6 classes or function prototypes would be more appropriate, despite their overhead.

### Alternative Approaches

Other potential alternatives worth mentioning include:

- **Singleton Pattern**: Instantiating a single instance of an object when needed, useful for configurations or shared resources.
  
- **Factory Functions**: Functions that return objects with specific characteristics or behaviors, allowing for more controlled instantiation and additional logic during creation.

- **Proxy Design Pattern**: Using proxies to control access to another object, adding additional behavior during read or write operations.

Each of these alternatives comes with its own set of trade-offs concerning performance, readability, maintainability, and complexity. Ultimately, the best choice will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of the project.

Related benchmarks:

ES6 Class vs Prototype vs Object Literal (modified) (version: 1)

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 days ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ES6 Class

Function Prototype

Object Literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 days ago):