Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Test benchmark fekd
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Def vs New
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Def
(function(){'use strict';window.DS={};Object.defineProperty(window.DS,'id',{value:id,enumerable:!1,writable:!1,configurable:!1});function id(id){return document.getElementById(id)}})();(function(){'use strict';var a=Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(window.DS,'id').value})()
New
(function(){'use strict';window.DS={};window.DS.base=function(){var _self=this;_self.id=id;function id(id){return document.getElementById(id)}}})();(function(){'use strict';var a=new window.DS.base,id=a.id})()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Def
New
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):
Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark. **What is being tested?** The test cases measure the performance difference between two approaches to retrieve an element by its ID using JavaScript. The approach involves creating a custom `id` function that returns the result of `document.getElementById(id)`. There are two variants: 1. **"Def"`: This variant creates a global object `DS` with a property `id`, and then uses this object's `id` property to retrieve the element. 2. **"New"`: This variant creates a new instance of a custom class `base` that has an `id` property, and then uses this instance's `id` property to retrieve the element. **Options compared** The two options are compared in terms of performance, measured by the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) on a specific browser configuration (Firefox 60 on Mac OS X 10.13). **Pros and cons of each approach:** 1. **"Def"`: * Pros: + Simple and straightforward implementation. + No additional overhead for creating an instance or class. * Cons: + The global object `DS` may be accessed by other scripts, which could lead to unexpected behavior. + The implementation uses a property on the global object, which might not be desirable in certain contexts. 2. **"New"`: * Pros: + Encapsulates the retrieval logic within an instance of a custom class, making it more modular and reusable. + Avoids polluting the global scope with additional properties or functions. * Cons: + Requires creating an instance of the `base` class, which might incur additional overhead due to object creation and lookup. **Library/Custom syntax** The test case uses a custom syntax for defining classes (in this case, the `base` class) using the `(function(){...})();` pattern. This is not part of standard JavaScript, but rather an extension or a convention used in certain libraries or frameworks (e.g., Closure Library). **Special JS feature/syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested here. **Alternative approaches:** Other alternatives to compare include: 1. **Native `document.getElementById`**: Using the native DOM method for element retrieval would likely be the fastest and most efficient approach. 2. **Closure-based implementation**: Implementing a closure-based solution, where an anonymous function is passed as an argument to `document.getElementById`, might provide better performance compared to the custom class approach. These alternatives are not explicitly tested in this benchmark, but they could be explored to compare their performance against the custom class approach. Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the existing implementation and might not capture all the nuances of each specific use case.
Related benchmarks:
+new Date vs new Date().getTime() vs Date.now() 100k
test power
fdsfdsf
Math.hypot vs Math.sqrt
Bool generation from uint32
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?