Benchmark: Destructure from Object.seal vs Object.freeze vs normal

Script Preparation code:

var a = Object.seal( {x: 321, y: 123} );
var b = {x: 321, y: 123}
var c = Object.freeze( {x: 321, y: 123} );

Tests:

seal
const {x,y} = a
normal
const {x,y} = b
freeze
const {x,y} = c

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
seal
normal
freeze

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 133 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
seal	835079936.0 Ops/sec
normal	835600384.0 Ops/sec
freeze	837072832.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between three approaches to prevent property modification on an object:

1.  **`Object.seal()`**: This method returns a sealable object, which is similar to `Object.freeze()`, but allows some operations like enumeration.
2.  **`Object.freeze()`**: This method freezes an object, making it immutable and preventing any modifications.
3.  **Normal (no sealing or freezing)**: In this approach, no special measures are taken to prevent property modification.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

*   `Object.seal()`: Seals the object, allowing some operations like enumeration.
*   `Object.freeze()`**: Freezes the object, making it immutable and preventing any modifications.
*  Normal: Does not seal or freeze the object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

*   **`Object.seal()`**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Faster execution compared to `Object.freeze()`.
        *   Allows some operations like enumeration.
    *   Cons:
        *   Does not make the object completely immutable.
        *   Can be vulnerable to certain attacks, such as using `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()` to check if a property exists on the sealable object.
*   **`Object.freeze()`**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Makes the object completely immutable.
        *   Provides strong security guarantees.
    *   Cons:
        *   Slower execution compared to `Object.seal()`.
*   Normal (no sealing or freezing):
    *   Pros:
        *   No additional overhead or impact on performance.
    *   Cons:
        *   Does not provide any protection against property modification.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no specific libraries used in this benchmark. However, the `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()` function is used to check if a property exists on the sealable object.

No special JavaScript features (like async/await or destructuring) are used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to prevent property modification include:

*   Using `const` and `let` keywords instead of `var`.
*   Using `Object.defineProperty()` with `configurable: false`, `writable: false`, and `enumerable: false`.
*   Using a library like Lodash's `pick()` function.
*   Implementing custom getters and setters for specific properties.

In conclusion, the benchmark provides an insightful comparison of three approaches to prevent property modification on objects. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, developers can make informed decisions about which method best suits their use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Destructure from Object.seal vs Object.freeze vs normal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: seal vs normal vs freeze

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

seal

normal

freeze

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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