Benchmark: module-pattern - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Variant 1

var adder = {
	add: function(x, y) { return x + y; }
};

var a = (function() {
	var outer = 1;
	return {
		add: function(x, y) { return adder.add(x, y); }
	};
})();

for(var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
	console.log(a.add(5,i));
}

​x
 
var adder = {    add: function(x, y) { return x + y; }};​var a = (function() {    var outer = 1;    return {        add: function(x, y) { return adder.add(x, y); }    };})();​for(var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {    console.log(a.add(5,i));}

Variant 2

var adder = {
	add: function(x, y) { return x + y; }
};

var b = (function(adder) {
	var outer = 1;
	return {
		add: function(x, y) { return adder.add(x, y); }
	};
})(adder);

for(var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
	console.log(b.add(5,i));
}

 
var adder = {    add: function(x, y) { return x + y; }};​var b = (function(adder) {    var outer = 1;    return {        add: function(x, y) { return adder.add(x, y); }    };})(adder);​for(var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {    console.log(b.add(5,i));}

Error

var adder = {
	add: function(x, y) { return x + y; }
};

var c = (function(adder) {
	var outer = 1;
	return {
		add: function(x, y) { return adder.add(x, y); }
	};
})(adder);

for(var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {
	console.log(c.add(5,i));
}

 
var adder = {    add: function(x, y) { return x + y; }};​var c = (function(adder) {    var outer = 1;    return {        add: function(x, y) { return adder.add(x, y); }    };})(adder);​for(var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) {    console.log(c.add(5,i));}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Variant 1
Variant 2
Error

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/90.0.4430.93 Safari/537.36 OPR/76.0.4017.123

Browser/OS: Opera 76 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Variant 1	245.2 Ops/sec
Variant 2	242.3 Ops/sec
Error	247.1 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case for measuring the performance of two different approaches to encapsulating functions in a module pattern.

Benchmark Definition: The benchmark definition is missing, but based on the script preparation code and individual test cases, it appears that the test is comparing the performance of three variants:

Variant 1: The function a is defined as an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE) with a nested object that references the adder variable.
Variant 2: The function b is also defined as an IIFE, but it takes the adder variable as an argument and uses it to define its own add function.
Error Variant: This variant contains an error in the script preparation code.

Options Compared: The benchmark compares the performance of the three variants:

Variant 1: Encapsulates functions within a nested object using IIFE
Variant 2: Takes the encapsulated function as an argument and uses it to define its own add function
Error Variant: Contains a syntax error, which is likely to cause unexpected behavior or crashes

Pros and Cons of Each Approach:

Variant 1 (Encapsulation with IIFE):
- Pros:
  - Encapsulates functions within a self-contained scope.
  - Can be easily extended or modified without affecting the outer scope.
- Cons:
  - May introduce unnecessary complexity due to the use of an IIFE.
Variant 2 (Function argument encapsulation):
- Pros:
  - Simplifies the code structure by avoiding the use of IIFE.
  - Can be more readable and maintainable.
- Cons:
  - Requires the function to take an additional argument, which may not be desirable in all cases.
Error Variant:
- Pros: None
- Cons:
  - Contains a syntax error that is likely to cause performance issues or crashes.

Library and Syntax Features Used:

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond standard ECMAScript syntax.

Other Alternatives:

Closures: Another approach could be using closures to encapsulate functions, which would eliminate the need for IIFE.
Modules: Modern JavaScript modules (e.g., ES6 import and export) can provide a more concise way of defining and importing functions.

Recommendations: Based on the benchmark results, it appears that Variant 1 performs better than Variant 2, while the Error Variant is not comparable due to its syntax error. The best approach depends on the specific requirements of the project, but generally:

Use encapsulation with IIFE when:
- You need a self-contained scope.
- You want to avoid polluting the outer scope.
Use function argument encapsulation when:
- Simplifying code structure is important.
- You don't need to extend or modify the function without affecting its namespace.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark test case for measuring the performance of two different approaches to encapsulating functions in a module pattern.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The benchmark definition is missing, but based on the script preparation code and individual test cases, it appears that the test is comparing the performance of three variants:

1. **Variant 1:** The function `a` is defined as an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE) with a nested object that references the `adder` variable.
2. **Variant 2:** The function `b` is also defined as an IIFE, but it takes the `adder` variable as an argument and uses it to define its own `add` function.
3. **Error Variant:** This variant contains an error in the script preparation code.

**Options Compared:**
The benchmark compares the performance of the three variants:

* Variant 1: Encapsulates functions within a nested object using IIFE
* Variant 2: Takes the encapsulated function as an argument and uses it to define its own `add` function
* Error Variant: Contains a syntax error, which is likely to cause unexpected behavior or crashes

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Variant 1 (Encapsulation with IIFE):**
	* Pros:
		+ Encapsulates functions within a self-contained scope.
		+ Can be easily extended or modified without affecting the outer scope.
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce unnecessary complexity due to the use of an IIFE.
2. **Variant 2 (Function argument encapsulation):**
	* Pros:
		+ Simplifies the code structure by avoiding the use of IIFE.
		+ Can be more readable and maintainable.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires the function to take an additional argument, which may not be desirable in all cases.
3. **Error Variant:**
	* Pros: None
	* Cons:
		+ Contains a syntax error that is likely to cause performance issues or crashes.

**Library and Syntax Features Used:**

None of the provided test cases use any external libraries or special JavaScript features beyond standard ECMAScript syntax.

**Other Alternatives:**

1. **Closures:** Another approach could be using closures to encapsulate functions, which would eliminate the need for IIFE.
2. **Modules:** Modern JavaScript modules (e.g., ES6 `import` and `export`) can provide a more concise way of defining and importing functions.

**Recommendations:**
Based on the benchmark results, it appears that Variant 1 performs better than Variant 2, while the Error Variant is not comparable due to its syntax error. The best approach depends on the specific requirements of the project, but generally:

* Use encapsulation with IIFE when:
	+ You need a self-contained scope.
	+ You want to avoid polluting the outer scope.
* Use function argument encapsulation when:
	+ Simplifying code structure is important.
	+ You don't need to extend or modify the function without affecting its namespace.

Related benchmarks:

module-pattern (version: 4)

Comparing performance of: Variant 1 vs Variant 2 vs Error

Created: 8 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result