Benchmark: Object literal vs Object.create(null) v5

Script Preparation code:

const create = Object.create.bind(null, null);

Tests:

Object.create(null)
let o; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { o = create() }
object literal
let o; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { o = {} }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object.create(null)
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 llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two approaches for creating non-empty objects:

1. **Object literal**: Creating an object using curly brackets `{}`.
2. **Object.create(null)**: Creating an object by binding the `null` value to a new function using `Object.create`.

**Options compared**

The test case uses Object.create, which is a legacy JavaScript method for creating objects. It takes two arguments: the prototype and the object's parent.

```javascript
const create = Object.create.bind(null, null);
```

This line of code creates a binding to `null` using `Object.create`, effectively bypassing the default prototype chain.

**Pros and Cons**

**Object Literal ( `{}` )**

Pros:

* Easy to read and write.
* No additional memory overhead since it doesn't create an object reference.
* Works with most modern browsers and Node.js versions.

Cons:

* Creates a new global variable `o` on each iteration, which can lead to performance issues in certain scenarios.
* May cause unexpected behavior if not properly scoped.

**Object.create(null)**

Pros:

* Reduces memory overhead since it doesn't create an object reference.
* Can be useful for creating objects that need to bypass the default prototype chain.

Cons:

* Less readable and more verbose than using `{}`.
* Not supported in older browsers or Node.js versions (prior to ECMAScript 2015).
* May cause unexpected behavior if not properly used.

**Library/Module usage**

There is no library or module explicitly mentioned in this benchmark. However, `Object.create` is a built-in JavaScript method that has been available since ECMAScript 1.0.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

This benchmark uses the following special syntax:

* `Object.create`: A legacy JavaScript method for creating objects.
* `bind()`: A method applied to an object (in this case, `null`) to create a new function that calls the original function with the specified arguments.

The binding of `null` to a new function using `bind()` is used to bypass the default prototype chain when creating objects. This is a niche usage and may not be familiar to many developers.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to create non-empty objects, there are other approaches available:

* Using the syntax `{ foo: bar }` to create an object with initial properties.
* Using `Object.assign()` or `Object.assign(null)` to assign values to a new object.
* Creating an object using a class expression (e.g., `(new Target()) => {}`).

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to using Object.create.

Related benchmarks:

Object literal vs Object.create(null) v5 (version: 0)

compare performance of object creating non-empty objects using object literal vs Object.create

Comparing performance of: Object.create(null) vs object literal

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object.create(null)

object literal

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):