Benchmark: if vs. decorator without polyfill

Script Preparation code:

"use strict";
var __decorate = (this && this.__decorate) || function (decorators, target, key, desc) {
    var c = arguments.length, r = c < 3 ? target : desc === null ? desc = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(target, key) : desc, d;
    if (typeof Reflect === "object" && typeof Reflect.decorate === "function") r = Reflect.decorate(decorators, target, key, desc);
    else for (var i = decorators.length - 1; i >= 0; i--) if (d = decorators[i]) r = (c < 3 ? d(r) : c > 3 ? d(target, key, r) : d(target, key)) || r;
    return c > 3 && r && Object.defineProperty(target, key, r), r;
};
var __metadata = (this && this.__metadata) || function (k, v) {
    if (typeof Reflect === "object" && typeof Reflect.metadata === "function") return Reflect.metadata(k, v);
};
var ENABLED = true;
var MeasureFn = function (target, propertyKey, descriptor) {
    var originalMethod = descriptor.value;
    descriptor.value = function wrapped() {
        var args = [];
        for (var _i = 0; _i < arguments.length; _i++) {
            args[_i] = arguments[_i];
        }
        if (ENABLED) {
            window.performance.mark('ABC:activate');
        }
        var result = originalMethod.apply(this, args);
        if (ENABLED) {
            window.performance.measure('ABC', 'ABC:activate');
            window.performance.clearMarks('ABC:activate');
        }
        return result;
    };
    // return edited descriptor as opposed to overwriting the descriptor
    return descriptor;
};
var ABC = /** @class */ (function () {
    function ABC() {
    }
    ABC.prototype.register = function () {
    };
    __decorate([
        MeasureFn,
        __metadata("design:type", Function),
        __metadata("design:paramtypes", []),
        __metadata("design:returntype", void 0)
    ], ABC.prototype, "register", null);
    return ABC;
}());
var CBA = /** @class */ (function () {
    function CBA() {
    }
    CBA.prototype.register = function () {
        if (ENABLED) {
            window.performance.mark('CBA:activate');
        }
        if (ENABLED) {
            window.performance.measure('CBA', 'CBA:activate');
            window.performance.clearMarks('CBA:activate');
        }
    };
    return CBA;
}());
var abc = new ABC();
var cba = new CBA();

Tests:

if
cba.register();
decorator
abc.register()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
if
decorator

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'd be happy to explain what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two test cases: `if` and `decorator`. The script preparation code is provided, which includes the necessary library imports and function definitions for `MeasureFn`, `__decorate`, and `ABC`.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **`if`**: This test case runs the `cba.register()` method directly.
2. **`decorator`**: This test case uses a decorator (`@MeasureFn`) to wrap the `register` method of the `ABC` class.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are being compared:

1. **Direct Method Call (i.e., `if`)**: Running the `register` method directly without any modifications.
2. **Decorator-Based Approach (i.e., `decorator`)**: Using a decorator to wrap the `register` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Direct Method Call (`if`)**

Pros:

* Simple and straightforward execution
* No additional overhead due to decoration or metadata management

Cons:

* May not provide accurate results if there are significant performance differences between the two approaches

**Decorator-Based Approach (`decorator`)**

Pros:

* Allows for more control over the measurement process (e.g., marking and measuring events)
* Can be used to measure the performance of complex operations or function calls

Cons:

* Introduces additional overhead due to decoration, metadata management, and potential caching issues
* May require careful consideration of caching and memoization effects on benchmark results

**Library: `MeasureFn`**

The `MeasureFn` library is used to create decorators that measure the performance of specific methods or functions. It provides a way to mark and measure events, as well as clear marks after execution.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some newer JavaScript features, such as async/await and let/const blocks, may have implications for performance measurements in benchmarks like this one.

**Other Alternatives**

If a decorator-based approach is not feasible or desired, alternative methods for measuring performance could include:

* Using a profiling tool or built-in browser profiler (e.g., Chrome DevTools)
* Implementing custom benchmarking functions that use low-level system calls to measure execution time
* Utilizing third-party libraries specifically designed for performance measurement and benchmarking

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: direct method calls versus decorator-based approach. The `MeasureFn` library provides a convenient way to create decorators that measure performance, but introduces additional overhead.

Related benchmarks:

if vs. decorator without polyfill (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: if vs decorator

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

if

decorator

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):