Benchmark: Object.create(null) vs Object literal

Tests:

Object.create
const object = Object.create(null); object.a = 1; object.b = 2;
Object literal
const object = {a: 1, b: 2};

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.create
Object literal

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 llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the details of this benchmark.

**Benchmark Description**
The benchmark compares two approaches to creating an object in JavaScript:

1. `Object.create(null)`
2. Object literal (`{a: 1, b: 2}`)

These are two different ways to create objects in JavaScript, and the benchmark aims to measure their performance.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

### Test Case 1: `Object.create`

The script creates an object using `Object.create(null)` and then sets two properties on it (`a` and `b`):
```javascript
const object = Object.create(null);
object.a = 1;
object.b = 2;
```
This approach creates a new, empty object with no prototype chain (i.e., `null` as its prototype). The `Object.create()` method is then used to create a new object that inherits from the specified prototype (`null`). Finally, two properties are set on this new object.

### Test Case 2: Object Literal

The script creates an object using the object literal syntax:
```javascript
const object = {a: 1, b: 2};
```
This approach directly creates a new object with the specified properties (`a` and `b`) without any explicit prototype chain setup.

**Library/Feature Used**

No external libraries are used in this benchmark. However, the `Object.create()` method is a built-in JavaScript function.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned.

**Pros/Cons of Different Approaches**

### Object.create(null)

Pros:

* Allows for complete control over the object's prototype chain
* Can be useful when working with legacy code or specific use cases

Cons:

* May incur performance overhead due to the extra method call (`Object.create()`)
* Requires explicit setup of the prototype chain, which can lead to errors if not done correctly

### Object Literal

Pros:

* More concise and readable syntax for creating simple objects
* Often faster than `Object.create()` since it avoids an additional function call

Cons:

* Limited control over the object's prototype chain (which is usually inherited from the parent object)
* May be less suitable for certain use cases, such as creating objects with a custom prototype chain

**Other Alternatives**

Other ways to create objects in JavaScript include:

* Using the `new` keyword followed by an object constructor function
* Utilizing the `Object()` function (e.g., `const obj = new Object()`)
* Leveraging ES6's class syntax and constructors

However, these alternatives are not directly compared in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Object.create(null) vs Object literal (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object.create vs Object literal

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.create

Object literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):