Benchmark: Optinal property vs undefined value

Script Preparation code:

function Person1 (fname, lname, age) {
  this.fname = fname;
  this.lname = lname;
  this.age = age;
}

function Person2 (fname, lname, age) {
  if (fname)
  	this.fname = fname;
  if (lname)
    this.lname = lname;
  if (age)
    this.age = age;
}

Tests:

Person 1
let a = new Person1();
Person 2
let b = new Person2();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Person 1
Person 2

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking framework.

**What is tested:**

The benchmark tests the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **Optimal property assignment**: In `Person1`, the properties are assigned directly using object syntax (`this.fname = fname;`).
2. **Conditional property assignment**: In `Person2`, properties are assigned conditionally, using an `if` statement to check for truthiness before assigning a value.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* **Optimal property assignment**: Directly assigns properties using object syntax.
* **Conditional property assignment**: Assigns properties only if their corresponding arguments are truthy (e.g., non-zero, non-empty string).

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Optimal property assignment**:
	* Pros:
		+ Faster execution, as no unnecessary checks are performed.
		+ Simplifies code readability.
	* Cons:
		+ May lead to unexpected behavior if a property is not explicitly defined.
2. **Conditional property assignment**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides better protection against null or undefined values being passed to properties.
		+ Can help prevent errors by avoiding unnecessary assignments.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds unnecessary checks, which can slow down execution.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that both `Person1` and `Person2` functions use object literal syntax, which is a standard JavaScript feature. No third-party libraries are required to run these benchmarks.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript syntax and concepts.

**Other alternatives:**

To achieve similar results, you could consider using alternative approaches:

* Use `Optional Chaining` (introduced in ECMAScript 2020) instead of conditional checks:
```javascript
class Person {
  constructor(fname, lname, age) {
    this.fname = fname ?? '';
    this.lname = lname ?? '';
    this.age = age ?? 0;
  }
}
```
This approach uses the nullish coalescing operator (`??`) to provide default values for properties.

* Use a `for...in` loop or `Object.keys()` method to iterate over object properties and assign them explicitly:
```javascript
class Person {
  constructor(fname, lname, age) {
    for (const prop in this) {
      if (prop !== 'constructor') {
        this[prop] = value;
      }
    }
  }

constructor(fname, lname, age) {
    Object.keys(this).forEach((key) => {
      if (arguments[key]) {
        this[key] = arguments[key];
      }
    });
  }
}
```
These alternatives may have different performance characteristics and may require adjustments to code readability.

Keep in mind that benchmarking is an iterative process. As new features and syntax are introduced, benchmarks like these help identify the performance implications of different approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Optinal property vs undefined value (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Person 1 vs Person 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Person 1

Person 2

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):