Benchmark: prototype vs class based 1

Tests:

prototype
const obj = { a: 1, b: 2, itemQty: 10, stockStatus: 'IN_STOCK' } function itemFilter(transformer) { delete transformer.item.itemQty; delete transformer.item.stockStatus return transformer.transform(); } /* function featureRoleFilter(item) { delete item.stockStatus return item } */ function TransformItem(item) { this.item = item; this.transform = () => this.item; } for(let i=0;i < 10000;i++) { const i = new TransformItem(obj) console.log(i) itemFilter(i) console.log(i.item) }
class
const obj = { a: 1, b: 2, itemQty: 10, stockStatus: 'IN_STOCK' } class Item { constructor() { this.item = obj; } transform() { return this.item; } } class FeatureRoleFilter extends Item { constructor(t) { super(); this.t = t; } transform() { delete this.item.itemQty; delete this.item.stockStatus; return this.t.transform(); } } for(let i=0;i<10000; i++){ let transformer = new Item(); console.log(transformer.transform()) transformer = new FeatureRoleFilter(transformer) console.log(transformer.transform()) }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
prototype
class

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmarking test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of two approaches: prototype-based and class-based object creation and manipulation.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests the following options:

1. **Prototype-based approach**: This method creates objects dynamically using the `new` keyword, without declaring a class. The `TransformItem` function is used to create new items from an existing `obj` reference.
2. **Class-based approach**: This method defines two classes: `Item` and `FeatureRoleFilter`. The `Item` class has a constructor that initializes the object with a reference to the original `obj`, and the `FeatureRoleFilter` class extends `Item` to provide additional functionality.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Prototype-based approach**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, flexible, and easy to use.
	* Cons: Performance may be slower due to dynamic object creation, and code readability can be affected by the lack of explicit classes.
2. **Class-based approach**:
	* Pros: Provides a clear structure for organizing code and data, and can lead to more maintainable and scalable applications.
	* Cons: Can result in heavier class overhead, especially if using inheritance.

**Library Usage**

None of the provided benchmark test cases use any external libraries.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The `class` keyword is used in the `FeatureRoleFilter` class definition. This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provides a concise way to define classes, which are similar to prototypes but offer more structure and readability.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following:

1. **Functional programming**: You can use functional programming techniques, such as mapping and filtering, to achieve similar results without objects or classes.
2. **Module-based approach**: Instead of creating objects dynamically, you could define a module that exports functions or values that can be used by other parts of your application.

In summary, the benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net provides an interesting comparison between prototype-based and class-based approaches in JavaScript. While both have their pros and cons, the choice ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Related benchmarks:

prototype vs class based 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: prototype vs class

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

prototype

class

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):