Benchmark: Implicit vs explicit toString()

Script Preparation code:

window.TestClass = class {
  constructor(contents) {
    this.contents = contents;
  }
  
  render() {
    return this.contents + "hi";
  }
  
  toString() {
    return this.render()
  }
}

window.TestClass2 = class {
  constructor(contents) {
    this.contents = contents;
  }
  
  toString() {
    return this.contents + "hi";
  }
}

Tests:

Explicit
let num = 500; let strings = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { strings.push(`${new TestClass(num).render()}`); }
Implicit
let num = 500; let strings = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { strings.push(`${new TestClass(num)}`); }
Implicit (no indirection)
let num = 500; let strings = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { strings.push(`${new TestClass2(num)}`); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Explicit
Implicit
Implicit (no indirection)

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to calling the `toString()` method on an object in JavaScript: explicit and implicit invocation.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines two classes, `TestClass` and `TestClass2`, which have a constructor that takes a `contents` parameter and a `render()` method that returns a string. The `TestClass` class has a custom implementation of the `toString()` method, which calls the `render()` method to generate the string.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of three test cases:

1. **Explicit**: This test case creates an array `strings` and pushes 100 times the result of calling the `render()` method on a new instance of `TestClass` with a number value.
2. **Implicit (no indirection)**: Similar to the explicit test, but instead of calling `render()`, it calls `TestClass` directly without invoking it as an object. This approach is considered "no indirection" because it doesn't involve creating an intermediate object reference.
3. **Implicit**: This test case is similar to the implicit (no indirection) test, but it uses the indirect approach by calling `TestClass2`, which is another class with a similar implementation.

**Options Being Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches:

1. **Explicit Invocation**: Calling `render()` as an object using the dot notation (`new TestClass(num).render()`) or as a function call (`new TestClass(num)()`)
2. **Implicit Invocation (No Indirection)**: Calling `TestClass` directly without invoking it as an object, e.g., `TestClass(num)`
3. **Implicit Invocation**: Calling `TestClass2` directly without invoking it as an object, similar to the no-indirection approach.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Explicit Invocation**:
	* Pros: More explicit and readable code.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to function call or object creation.
2. **Implicit (No Indirection)**:
	* Pros: Can be faster since it avoids creating an intermediate object reference.
	* Cons: Less explicit and potentially harder to read.
3. **Implicit Invocation**:
	* Similar pros and cons as implicit (no indirection), but with the added complexity of calling a different class.

**Library and Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, there are no libraries or special JavaScript features being used beyond the standard ECMAScript syntax. The classes `TestClass` and `TestClass2` are custom implementations, and the tests use only basic JavaScript constructs like arrays, loops, and function calls.

**Alternatives**

There are other ways to test the performance of calling `toString()` in JavaScript, such as:

* Using a more complex object graph or nested structures.
* Incorporating other factors that might affect performance, like string concatenation or regex patterns.
* Using different browsers, devices, or operating systems to simulate various use cases.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is specifically designed to compare the performance of explicit and implicit invocation approaches, so it's essential to consider those specific scenarios when interpreting the results.

Related benchmarks:

Implicit vs explicit toString() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Explicit vs Implicit vs Implicit (no indirection)

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Explicit

Implicit

Implicit (no indirection)

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):