Benchmark: Prototypal Object-Property Method Call

Script Preparation code:

Klass = function(p) {
  this.p = p;
}
Klass.prototype.foo = function(p) {
  console.log('foo ' + p + ' ' + this.p);
}

Tests:

Wrapped Call
var i = 100000, klass = new Klass('wrapped'); while(i--) { wrapper(i); } function wrapper(p) { klass.foo(p); }
Direct Call
var i = 100000, klass = new Klass('wrapped'); while(i--) { klass.foo(i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Wrapped Call
Direct Call

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that tests the performance difference between calling a method on an object using two different approaches:

1. **Wrapped Call**: This approach involves creating a new instance of a class (`Klass`) and passing it to a wrapper function, which then calls the `foo` method on the object.
2. **Direct Call**: This approach involves calling the `foo` method directly on the `klass` object, without any wrapping or additional functions.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of these two approaches:

* **Wrapped Call (Klass instance)**: Creating a new instance of the class and passing it to the wrapper function.
* **Direct Call (Klass prototype method)**: Calling the `foo` method directly on the `klass` object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Wrapped Call (Klass instance)**
	+ Pros:
		- Can provide additional functionality or error handling through the wrapper function.
		- May be necessary if the `foo` method requires specific initialization or setup.
	+ Cons:
		- Introduces overhead due to object creation and wrapping.
		- May lead to slower performance compared to direct calls.
* **Direct Call (Klass prototype method)**
	+ Pros:
		- Faster performance, as it avoids the overhead of object creation and wrapping.
		- Can be beneficial for methods that don't require additional setup or functionality.
	+ Cons:
		- May not provide necessary error handling or protection if used incorrectly.

**Library and Its Purpose**

In this benchmark, `Klass` is a custom class definition using JavaScript's prototype-based object creation. The `foo` method on the `Klass.prototype` object is intended to demonstrate how method calls are executed on objects in different scenarios.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There isn't any specific special feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark, other than the use of prototype-based object creation and methods.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for similar benchmarks, here are some alternatives:

* Using a static method on the class instead of an instance (e.g., `Klass.foo(p)`).
* Implementing a higher-order function that wraps the method call (e.g., using `bind()` or an arrow function).
* Comparing performance with other JavaScript features, such as async/await or promises.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might change the focus of the benchmark and may not directly compare to the wrapped call and direct call approaches tested here.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/53.0.2785.143 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 53 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Wrapped Call	0.4 Ops/sec
Direct Call	0.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Prototypal Object-Property Method Call (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Wrapped Call vs Direct Call

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Wrapped Call

Direct Call

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):