Benchmark: Prototype - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

proto
var a; a = function(){}; a.prototype.wat = function (){ r = 9 + 9; }; for(var i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ a.prototype.wat() }
noproto
var a; a = function(){}; a.wat = function (){ r = 9 + 9; }; for(var i = 0; i < 10000; 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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is empty, which means that the script preparation code and HTML preparation code are not provided. This might be intentional, as some benchmarks require specific setup or configuration to run correctly.

However, based on the individual test cases, it appears that the benchmark is testing the performance of assigning a property to an object versus just accessing the same property without assignment.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. `proto`: This test case defines a function `a` with a prototype `wat`. The `wat` method is then assigned to the `prototype` of `a`. The test then executes the `wat` method 10,000 times in a loop.
2. `noproto`: This test case defines a function `a` and assigns the same `wat` method directly to `a`, without using the prototype. The test then executes the `wat` method 10,000 times in a loop.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using the prototype (`proto`) versus not using the prototype (`noproto`).

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Using the Prototype:

Pros:

* This approach allows for more flexibility in defining methods on an object.
* It's often used when working with classes or inheritance.

Cons:

* Accessing properties through the prototype can be slower due to the overhead of method resolution.
* In some cases, this can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully.

Not Using the Prototype:

Pros:

* This approach is generally faster and more direct.
* It's often used when working with simple objects or functions that don't require inheritance.

Cons:

* This approach can be less flexible than using the prototype.
* It might lead to repeated property definitions if not used carefully.

**Library**

In neither of the test cases is a library explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some benchmarks might use libraries like `lodash` or `underscore` for utility functions or methods.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in these benchmark definitions. The code appears to be standard ECMAScript 5+ syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create a similar benchmark, you could consider testing other aspects of object-oriented programming, such as:

* Inheritance
* Method overriding
* Property access with `this` vs. direct property access
* Object creation and garbage collection

Keep in mind that the best approach would depend on your specific use case and requirements.

If you wanted to create a benchmark similar to this one, I would suggest using a tool like `BenchmarkJS` or `js-benchmark`, which provide more features and flexibility for creating benchmarks.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/52.0.2743.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 52 on Windows 7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
proto	320.4 Ops/sec
noproto	327.0 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):