Benchmark: getter vs method

Tests:

get
class User { constructor(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } get isAdult() { return this.age < 20 } } const user = new User('foo', 20); user.isAdult
method
class User { constructor(name, age) { this.name = name; this.age = age; } isAdult() { return this.age < 20 } } const user = new User('foo', 20); user.isAdult

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
get
method

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is an essential task for any web developer or engineer. The provided benchmark, MeasureThat.net, allows users to create and run microbenchmarks for their JavaScript code.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition provides information about the test case. In this case, there are two test cases: "getter vs method". This suggests that we're comparing the performance of accessing an object's property using a getter function versus a method (i.e., calling a named function).

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

1. **Getter Function**: Using a getter function to access an object's property.
2. **Method Call**: Calling a named function that returns the desired value.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Getter Function

Pros:

* Can be more efficient, as it allows the browser to optimize the lookup process using the `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()` method or similar optimizations.
* Can provide better encapsulation, as the getter function can control access to the property.

Cons:

* May require additional setup and configuration in the browser.
* Can lead to slower performance if the getter function is complex or expensive to compute.

### Method Call

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward to implement.
* Can be more intuitive for developers who are familiar with method calling syntax.

Cons:

* May not provide the same level of encapsulation as a getter function.
* Can result in slower performance due to the overhead of calling a named function.

**Library Usage**

In the provided benchmark, there is no explicit library usage. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may use internal libraries or optimizations when executing getters and methods. For example, Firefox 115 uses its `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()` method optimization for getters.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are a few special features/syntax used in this benchmark:

* **Arrow functions**: The getter function is defined using an arrow function (`() => {...}`), which is a shorthand way of defining a function. This syntax is supported by most modern JavaScript engines.
* **Class syntax**: The `class` keyword is used to define the `User` class, which is a modern syntax feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to compare the performance of accessing an object's property using different methods, here are some alternative approaches:

1. **Property access with dot notation**: `user.isAdult = user.age < 20`
2. **Property access with bracket notation**: `user['isAdult'] = user['age'] < 20`
3. **Using a closure**: Define a function that captures the object's properties and returns the desired value.
4. **Using a computed property**: Use the `Object.defineProperty()` method to define a computed property on the object.

These alternatives can be used as additional test cases in the benchmark to further compare performance characteristics.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 115 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
get	811120.6 Ops/sec
method	1056944.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

getter vs method (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: get vs method

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

get

method

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):