Benchmark: Test of destructurization

Tests:

Without desctructurization
const obj = {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3} const d = obj.a + obj.b + obj.c;
With desctructurization
const obj = {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3} const {a, b, c} = obj; const d = a + b + c;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Without desctructurization
With desctructurization

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Without desctructurization	213582832.0 Ops/sec
With desctructurization	208186464.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: destructuring assignment and simple object addition.

**Options Compared:**

1. **Destructuring Assignment**: This approach uses the syntax `{a, b, c} = obj` to extract properties from an object `obj`. The resulting variables `a`, `b`, and `c` are assigned the values of `obj.a`, `obj.b`, and `obj.c`, respectively.
2. **Simple Object Addition**: This approach adds the property values together using the syntax `d = obj.a + obj.b + obj.c`.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Destructuring Assignment**:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable code
		- Can be faster due to optimized compiler behavior
	+ Cons:
		- May have a higher overhead due to the creation of temporary variables
		- Less intuitive for developers who are not familiar with this syntax
* **Simple Object Addition**:
	+ Pros:
		- More straightforward and easier to understand
		- No additional variables are created, which can be beneficial in memory-intensive scenarios
	+ Cons:
		- Longer code and potentially less readable

**Library Used:**
None explicitly mentioned, but it's likely that the JavaScript engine being used by MeasureThat.net is responsible for optimizing the execution of these benchmarks.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax:**
The benchmark uses destructuring assignment with object literal syntax (`{a, b, c} = obj`). This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and has since become a standard part of modern JavaScript.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Browser Engine:** The benchmark results are reported for Google Chrome 91 on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 system, which may indicate that the benchmark is optimized for this specific browser and platform.
* **Performance:** The benchmark aims to measure the performance difference between these two approaches.

**Other Alternatives:**
If you're interested in exploring other benchmarking options or comparing different JavaScript features, you might consider:

* Micro-Benchmarking frameworks like `benchmark.js` or `js-benchmark`
* Online code comparison and optimization tools like CodePen or JSFiddle
* Custom-written benchmarks using your preferred programming language

Related benchmarks:

Test of destructurization (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Without desctructurization vs With desctructurization

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Without desctructurization

With desctructurization

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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