Benchmark: Classes memory - MeasureThat.net

Tests:

Arrows in classes
class A { hi = () => { return 'Hi' + '!'; } bye = () => { return 'Bye' + '!'; } message = () => { return this.hi() + this.bye(); } } const a = new A(); const message = a.message; message();
Bind in classes
class A { constructor() { this.message = this.message.bind(this); } hi() { return 'Hi' + '!'; } bye() { return 'Bye' + '!'; } message() { return this.hi() + this.bye(); } } const a = new A(); const message = a.message; message();
Bind in classes prototype
class A { constructor() { this.message = A.prototype.message.bind(this); } hi() { return 'Hi' + '!'; } bye() { return 'Bye' + '!'; } message() { return this.hi() + this.bye(); } } const a = new A(); const message = a.message; message();
Mixed in classes
class A { hi() { return 'Hi' + '!'; } bye() { return 'Bye' + '!'; } message = () => { return this.hi() + this.bye(); } } const a = new A(); const message = a.message; message();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Arrows in classes
Bind in classes
Bind in classes prototype
Mixed in classes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Arrows in classes	284371.4 Ops/sec
Bind in classes	412080.5 Ops/sec
Bind in classes prototype	401019.3 Ops/sec
Mixed in classes	355567.3 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition is a JSON object that provides metadata about the test. It contains:

* `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark.
* `Description`: No description is provided, which might be due to the simplicity of the test.
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These fields are empty, indicating that no preparation code or HTML setup is required.

**Individual Test Cases**
The test cases are represented as an array of objects. Each object contains:

* `Benchmark Definition`: A string representing the JavaScript code for the benchmark. This code defines a class with multiple methods and a property.
* `Test Name`: A descriptive name for each test case.

Here's a brief explanation of each test case:

1. **Arrows in classes**: This test case creates an instance of the `A` class, assigns its `message()` method to a variable, and calls it. The focus is on whether using arrow functions (`=>`) within a class affects performance.
2. **Bind in classes**: Similar to the previous test, but with the added complexity of binding the `message()` method to the instance's context using `this.message = A.prototype.message.bind(this)`.
3. **Bind in classes prototype**: This test case is similar to the previous one, but uses the `bind()` method on the class prototype instead of the instance.
4. **Mixed in classes**: In this test, the `message()` method is defined as a normal function (`() => { ... }`) rather than using arrow functions or binding.

**Comparison**
The benchmark compares the performance of each test case across different browsers (Chrome 123) and devices (Desktop). The results are displayed as execution counts per second.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Arrow Functions**:
	+ Pros: Simpler syntax, less overhead.
	+ Cons: Can lead to unexpected behavior due to hoisting, may not work correctly in some older browsers or environments.
* **Binding**:
	+ Pros: Allows for explicit control over the context of a function call.
	+ Cons: Can be slower than using arrow functions, and may require more manual setup (as seen in Test 2).
* **Class Prototype vs Instance Context**:
	+ Pros: Using the prototype can lead to faster lookup times, as it avoids the overhead of creating an instance context.
	+ Cons: May not work correctly if the class has multiple constructors or if the `bind()` method is used on a non-object value.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark assumes that the JavaScript engine will optimize away unnecessary operations. However, in some cases (e.g., using arrow functions), this optimization may not occur.
* The performance differences between test cases might be influenced by factors such as browser versions, hardware, and network conditions.

**Alternatives**
There are other ways to approach this benchmark:

* **Using a different binding method**: Instead of using `bind()` on the instance or prototype, you could use an alternative method like `call()` or `apply()`.
* **Using a different function syntax**: You could use traditional function declarations (`function () { ... }`) instead of arrow functions.
* **Incorporating other optimization techniques**: You could experiment with techniques like memoization, caching, or parallel execution to further improve performance.

Keep in mind that the specific approach and optimizations will depend on your goals and the requirements of your application.

Related benchmarks:

Classes memory (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Arrows in classes vs Bind in classes vs Bind in classes prototype vs Mixed in classes

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Arrows in classes

Bind in classes

Bind in classes prototype

Mixed in classes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):