Benchmark: JavaScript nested namespace vs simple namespace

Tests:

Nested namespace
var NS = NS || {}; NS.A = NS.A || {}; NS.A.B = { func1: function () {}, func2: function () {} } NS.A.B.func1(); NS.A.B.func2();
Prefixed namespace
var NS_A_B = { func1: function () {}, func2: function () {} } NS_A_B.func1(); NS_A_B.func2();
Simple nested namespace
var NS = { A: { B: { func1: function () {}, func2: function () {} } } }; NS.A.B.func1(); NS.A.B.func2();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Nested namespace
Prefixed namespace
Simple nested namespace

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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three approaches to create and access nested namespaces in JavaScript:

1. **Nested Namespace**: Uses double colon (`::`) or optional chaining (`?.`) to create a nested object.
2. **Prefixed Namespace**: Uses a prefix (`NS.`) followed by the namespace path.
3. **Simple Nested Namespace**: Uses an object literal with dot notation (`.`) to create a simple, flat namespace structure.

**Library/Functionality Used**

None of these benchmarks rely on external libraries or functions beyond standard JavaScript features.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

Two special JS features are used:

* Double colon (`::`) for nested objects (introduced in ECMAScript 2017)
* Optional chaining (`?.`) for accessing nested properties safely (introduced in ECMAScript 2020)

**Benchmark Comparison**

Here's a brief summary of what each approach is compared, along with their pros and cons:

1. **Nested Namespace**
	* Uses double colon (`::`) or optional chaining (`?.`).
	* Pros: concise, easy to read.
	* Cons: may not work in older browsers that don't support these features, can be slower due to function calls involved in creating the nested object.
2. **Prefixed Namespace**
	* Uses a prefix (`NS.`) followed by the namespace path.
	* Pros: widely supported in older browsers, easier to debug and maintain.
	* Cons: more verbose and less readable than other approaches.
3. **Simple Nested Namespace**
	* Uses an object literal with dot notation (`.`).
	* Pros: simplest approach, easy to understand.
	* Cons: can be less efficient due to the need for multiple property lookups.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

1. **Simple Nested Namespace**: Has the highest executions per second (157429904), suggesting it's likely the fastest approach.
2. **Prefixed Namespace**: Comes in second (155426656), indicating it's a reasonable compromise between conciseness and performance.
3. **Nested Namespace**: Has the lowest execution rate (136272080), which may be due to its use of double colon or optional chaining, potentially introducing overhead.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches not covered by this benchmark include:

* Using `Object.create()` to create a new object with a specific prototype.
* Utilizing `Proxy` objects for more complex namespace management.
* Leveraging modern JavaScript features like async/await and decorators for more concise code.

Related benchmarks:

JavaScript nested namespace vs simple namespace (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Nested namespace vs Prefixed namespace vs Simple nested namespace

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Nested namespace

Prefixed namespace

Simple nested namespace

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):