Benchmark: diff between func types

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];

Tests:

decl
function functionDeclaration(item) { arr.push(item); } for (let i = 1; i < 10000; i++) { functionDeclaration(i); }
class
class Test { constructor(item) { this.item = item; } addItem(){ arr.push(this.item) } } for (let i = 1; i < 10000; i++) { new Test(i).addItem(); }
obj lit
const Test = { addItem: function(item) { arr.push(this.item); } }; for (let i = 1; i < 10000; i++) { Test.addItem(i); }
funcp
const Test = function () { this.addItem = function(item) { arr.push(item); } } for (let i = 1; i < 10000; i++) { new Test().addItem(i); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
decl
class
obj lit
funcp

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 JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is testing the performance difference between three different approaches to creating functions:

1. **Explicit function declaration**: `function functionDeclaration(item) { arr.push(item); }`
2. **Class-based approach**: `class Test { constructor(item) { this.item = item; } addItem(){ arr.push(this.item); } } new Test(i).addItem();`
3. **Object literal syntax**: `const Test = { addItem: function(item) { arr.push(this.item); } };` and then calling the `addItem` method on the object.

**Options Compared**
The benchmark is comparing the performance of these three approaches in terms of:

* How many executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) each approach can handle.
* The type of function being created: declared explicitly, using a class, or defined as an object literal.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Explicit function declaration**:
	* Pros: Simple, straightforward syntax; easy to understand and maintain.
	* Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of declaring a new function scope.
2. **Class-based approach**:
	* Pros: Encapsulates state and behavior in a single unit (the class); can provide additional benefits like inheritance and polymorphism.
	* Cons: More verbose syntax; may require additional setup and configuration for complex use cases.
3. **Object literal syntax**:
	* Pros: Concise and readable syntax; can be used to define simple functions or methods.
	* Cons: May not be suitable for more complex function definitions, as it limits the scope and accessibility of the defined function.

**Library**
There is no explicit library being used in this benchmark. However, the `arr` array is referenced throughout all test cases, which suggests that it might be a global variable or a shared resource between tests.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**
None are explicitly mentioned. The benchmarks focus on comparing different approaches to function creation rather than highlighting specific features of JavaScript syntax.

**Other Alternatives**
For similar benchmarks, you could consider testing other approaches, such as:

* Function expressions (e.g., `var func = function(item) { arr.push(item); }`)
* Arrow functions (e.g., `(item) => { arr.push(item); }`)
* Constructor functions (e.g., `function Test(item) { this.item = item; } new Test(i).addItem();`)

Keep in mind that the specific approaches and alternatives will depend on the goals and focus of your benchmarking efforts.

Related benchmarks:

diff between func types (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: decl vs class vs obj lit vs funcp

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

decl

class

obj lit

funcp

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):