Benchmark: New vs literal - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Const function
let selectChart = (x, y, z) => { return { x, y, z }; }; for (let ii = 0; ii < 10000; ii++) { let asdf = selectChart(ii, 'asdf' + ii, ii - 10); }
Object construction
class Foo { constructor(x, y, z) { this.x = x; this.y = y; this.z = z; } } for (let ii = 0; ii < 10000; ii++) { let asdf = new Foo(ii, 'asdf' + ii, ii - 10); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Const function
Object construction

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net provides a platform for users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, which means that two different approaches are compared to measure their performance. The benchmark tests how fast each approach can execute a specific piece of code.

In the provided JSON, there are two individual test cases:

1. **Const function**: This test case compares the performance of creating a constant function (`let selectChart = ...`) versus using literals (i.e., not creating a function at all).
2. **Object construction**: This test case compares the performance of constructing objects using constructors (`class Foo { ... }`) versus other methods.

**Options compared**

For each test case, two options are compared:

* Option 1: Using constants or literals
* Option 2: Not using constants or literals (i.e., creating a function)

**Pros and cons of each approach**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

**Const function**

Pros:

* Creates a constant function, which can be useful for caching results or making code more predictable.
* May lead to better optimization by the JavaScript engine.

Cons:

* Creates an actual function object, which requires memory allocation and can slow down execution.
* May not be as fast as using literals, especially if the function is simple and doesn't need to be reused extensively.

**Object construction (class Foo)**

Pros:

* Can lead to better optimization by the JavaScript engine, as it allows for more aggressive inlining and caching.
* Can result in faster execution times, especially for complex objects or functions that need to be reused extensively.

Cons:

* Requires creating a new object instance, which can slow down execution due to memory allocation and garbage collection.
* May not be suitable for simple cases where literals would be sufficient.

**Other considerations**

When comparing these two approaches, it's essential to consider the following factors:

* **Code complexity**: More complex code might benefit from using constructors or constants, while simpler code might be better off with literals.
* **Reusability**: If a function needs to be reused extensively, using a constant function or constructor might lead to better performance.
* **Predictability**: Using constants or constructors can make code more predictable and easier to maintain.

**Library**

There is no specific library mentioned in the provided JSON. However, MeasureThat.net provides a range of built-in libraries for running JavaScript benchmarks, including:

* `js-benchmark`: A lightweight benchmarking library that allows for easy creation and execution of microbenchmarks.
* `benchmark`: A popular benchmarking library for Node.js that supports various testing frameworks.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the provided JSON. However, MeasureThat.net supports running benchmarks with advanced JavaScript features like ES6 modules, async/await, and Web Workers.

In summary, when comparing const functions to literals (or object construction to other methods), it's essential to consider factors like code complexity, reusability, predictability, and performance characteristics specific to the use case.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_12_0) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Mac OS X 10.12.0

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Const function	3517.6 Ops/sec
Object construction	1492.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

New vs literal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Const function vs Object construction

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Const function

Object construction

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):