Benchmark: Prototype - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

proto
var a; a = function(){}; a.prototype.wat = function (){ r = 9 + 9; }; for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++){ a.prototype.wat() }
noproto
var a; a = function(){}; a.wat = function (){ r = 9 + 9; }; for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++){ a.wat() }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
proto
noproto

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark data and explain what's being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that provides information about the test case. In this case, there is only one test case with no script preparation code or HTML preparation code specified. This suggests that the focus of the benchmark is on the JavaScript engine's performance in executing the provided JavaScript code.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. "proto"

In this test case, a function `a` is declared and assigned to an object `a`. The function has a prototype property `wat`, which is also assigned a function. This function assigns a value to a variable `r` inside the `wat` method.

The test case then executes the `wat` method 1000 times using a `for` loop.

2. "noproto"

This test case is identical to the previous one, except that the `prototype` property of the function `a` is not used explicitly. Instead, the `wat` method is assigned directly to the function object itself.

**What's being tested**

The main objective of this benchmark appears to be testing the performance difference between using `prototype` and not using `prototype` when assigning a method to a function in JavaScript.

**Options compared**

Two options are compared:

1. Using `prototype` with assignment (e.g., `a.prototype.wat = function () { ... }`)
2. Not using `prototype` with direct assignment (e.g., `a.wat = function () { ... }`)

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Using `prototype` with assignment:**

Pros:

* Allows for more flexible method overriding and inheritance
* Can be useful in certain scenarios where you need to add or modify methods dynamically

Cons:

* May introduce additional overhead due to the creation of a new object on the heap
* Can lead to performance issues if not used carefully

**Not using `prototype` with direct assignment:**

Pros:

* Can result in faster execution since no extra object creation is required
* May be beneficial for small scripts or projects where performance matters

Cons:

* Limits method overriding and inheritance capabilities
* May not be suitable for larger or more complex applications

**Other considerations**

The benchmark also reports the `DevicePlatform`, `OperatingSystem`, and `ExecutionsPerSecond` metrics, which provide additional context about the test environment. The `ExecutionsPerSecond` value indicates how many times the function was executed per second.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines might use internal libraries or frameworks to implement their features and optimizations.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The only special feature used here is the `for` loop with a variable declaration (`var i = 0`). This is a basic JavaScript construct and not specific to any particular engine or syntax.

If you're interested in exploring alternative benchmarks, some options might include:

* The JSPerf benchmarking tool
* The MicroBenchmarking project on GitHub
* The V8 benchmarking suite for Chrome engineers

Keep in mind that each benchmark has its own goals and focuses, so it's essential to choose the one that best aligns with your testing needs.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_10_4) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/52.0.2743.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 52 on Mac OS X 10.10.4

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
proto	4665.1 Ops/sec
noproto	5204.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Prototype (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: proto vs noproto

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

proto

noproto

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):