Benchmark: es6 class static vs prototype2

Script Preparation code:

const noop = () => {}

const descriptor = {
  bar: noop
}

class Foo {
    static bar() {}

  	constructor () {
      this.bar2 = noop
    }
  
    bar() {}
  
    get descriptor () {
      return descriptor
    }
}

var foo = new Foo()

Tests:

constructor
foo.constructor.bar()
prototype
foo.bar()
property
foo.bar2()
descriptor
foo.descriptor.bar()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
constructor
prototype
property
descriptor

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its options for you.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically comparing three methods of accessing a static method in a class:

1. `foo.constructor.bar()`
2. `foo.bar()`
3. `foo.descriptor.bar`

These methods are tested using different approaches to access the `bar` method, which is defined as a static method inside a class (`Foo`). The test also compares accessing a property (`bar2`) and another static method (`descriptor.bar()`).

**Options Compared**

The three options compared are:

1. **Constructor-based access**: Using the constructor of the class (`foo.constructor`) to access the `bar` method.
2. **Prototype-based access**: Using the prototype chain to access the `bar` method (not directly applicable in this case, as it's a static method).
3. **Descriptor-based access**: Using the descriptor object (`descriptor`) to access the `bar` method.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Constructor-based access**:
	* Pros: Typically faster, as it involves fewer indirections.
	* Cons: Can be slower if the constructor is not optimized or if there are many constructors in the class.
2. **Prototype-based access**:
	* Not applicable in this case, as `bar` is a static method.
3. **Descriptor-based access**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient, as it avoids the overhead of function calls and returns.
	* Cons: May not work if the property is not properly configured (e.g., with `get`, `set`, or `writable` properties).

In this specific benchmark, the results suggest that:

1. `foo.bar()` provides the fastest execution time.
2. `foo.descriptor.bar()` comes in second.

**Libraries and Special Features**

The provided code uses JavaScript's built-in features without any additional libraries.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to compare these options using a different framework or library, the results might vary. Some alternatives could include:

1. **ES6 class-based methods**: Using arrow functions, `this` binding, and other ES6 class features.
2. **Closures**: Creating a closure to encapsulate the access to the static method.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark code.

In summary, this benchmark compares three approaches to accessing a static method in JavaScript: constructor-based access, descriptor-based access, and prototype-based access (not applicable). The results suggest that `foo.bar()` provides the fastest execution time.

Related benchmarks:

es6 class static vs prototype2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: constructor vs prototype vs property vs descriptor

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

constructor

prototype

property

descriptor

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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