Run results for: Compare Performance of some JS Design patterns

Run details:

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.87 Safari/537.36

Browser: Chrome 67

Operating system: Mac OS X 10.13.1

Device Platform: Desktop

Date tested: 6 years ago

Test name	Executions per second
Using this	150837.9 Ops/sec
Using prototype	127131.7 Ops/sec
Using Factory	122514.6 Ops/sec

Script Preparation code:

function T(i) {
  this.counter = i;
}
  
T.prototype.myMethod = function() {
  if (this.counter == 20000) {
    console.log('Hey T!');
  }
};
  
function Tt(i) {
  this.counter = i;
  this.myMethod = function() {
    if (this.counter == 20000) {
      console.log('Hey Tt!');
    }
  };
}

function factoryPattern(i){
  var counter = i;
  function myMethod() {
    if (counter == 20000) {
      console.log('Hey Factory!');
    }
  }
  return {
    myMethod: myMethod
  }
}

Tests:

Using this
for (var i = 1; i <= 100; i++) { var x = new T(i); x.myMethod(); }
Using prototype
for (var i = 1; i <= 100; i++) { var x = new Tt(i); x.myMethod(); }
Using Factory
for (var i = 1; i <= 100; i++) { var x = factoryPattern(i); x.myMethod(); }

Run results for: Compare Performance of some JS Design patterns

Compare performance as well as memory consumed of 3 JS Design Patterns: Factory, Constructor and Prototype

Using this

Using prototype

Using Factory