Benchmark: object mixin compare

Script Preparation code:

function test1(mixin) {
  return {
    a: 'a',
    b: 'b',
    c: 'c',
    d: 'd',
    e: 'e',
    f: 'f',
    ...mixin
  };
}

class Test2Class {
  constructor() {
    this.a = 'a';
    this.b = 'b';
    this.c = 'c';
    this.d = 'd';
    this.e = 'e';
    this.f = 'f';
  }
}

Test2Class.prototype.ok = function () {
  return 'ok';
};

function test2() {
  return new Test2Class();
}

Tests:

test1
const obj1 = test1({ ok: () => 'ok' }); obj1.ok() === 'ok'
test2
const obj2 = test2(); obj2.ok() === 'ok'

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test1
test2

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 details of this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches to create and use objects with methods. The benchmark is designed to test the execution speed of object creation, method invocation, and comparison.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`test1` function**: This function creates an object by concatenating a literal object with the `mixin` parameter using the spread operator (`...`). It also defines a method `ok()` on the resulting object.
2. **`test2` class**: This class creates an instance of itself, which automatically sets up the properties and methods defined in the constructor.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`test1` function**:
	* Pros: Simple, concise, and easy to understand. It uses a modern JavaScript feature (spread operator) to create the object.
	* Cons: May incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new function instance.
2. **`test2` class**:
	* Pros: More concise than creating an object using the spread operator, as it leverages the built-in behavior of classes and constructors.
	* Cons: Might be less efficient in older browsers that don't support modern class syntax.

**Library**

None. This benchmark doesn't use any external libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS Feature**

Yes, the `test1` function uses a special JavaScript feature called the spread operator (`...`). The spread operator was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and allows for concise object creation by expanding an array-like object into new objects. While widely supported, older browsers might not have this feature enabled.

**Other Considerations**

When creating objects with methods using these approaches:

* In modern JavaScript environments, both `test1` and `test2` will produce similar performance results.
* Older browsers that don't support the spread operator or modern class syntax might perform worse with `test1`.
* The benchmark only tests the execution speed of object creation, method invocation, and comparison. Other factors like memory allocation, garbage collection, or caching might affect performance in different scenarios.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to these approaches could include:

* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming patterns, which can simplify object creation and manipulation.
* Employing prototype chaining to create objects with methods in a more concise manner.
* Leveraging the `Object.create()` method to clone existing objects and add new properties.

However, these alternatives might not be as straightforward or efficient as using a simple function like `test1` or defining a class like `test2`.

Related benchmarks:

object mixin compare (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: test1 vs test2

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

test1

test2

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):