Benchmark: Object literal vs Object.create(null) (better bench)

Tests:

Object.create(null)
const a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const o = Object.create(null) o.x = 'a string' o.y = 17 o.z = { m: 'an object', n: 97 } a.push( o ) }
object literal
const a = []; for (let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const o = {} o.x = 'a string' o.y = 17 o.z = { m: 'an object', n: 97 } a.push( 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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases, which are part of a larger benchmarking framework called MeasureThat.net. The test cases compare the performance of creating non-empty objects using two different approaches:

1. **Object Literal**: Creating an object directly using curly braces (`{}`).
2. **Object.create(null)**: Using the `Object.create` method to create an empty object and then adding properties to it.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Object literal (using `{}`)
* Object.create(null) (a shorthand way of creating an empty object)

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Object Literal**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable syntax.
		+ Easier to understand and maintain, especially for simple objects.
	* Cons:
		+ Can lead to slower performance due to the overhead of parsing the curly braces and creating a new object.
2. **Object.create(null)**
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient in terms of performance, as it avoids the overhead of parsing curly braces.
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable and more verbose syntax.
		+ Requires a better understanding of the `Object.create` method and its usage.

**Library used**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, the use of `Object.create(null)` suggests that the code is using the built-in JavaScript object creation mechanism.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses a shorthand way of creating an empty object using `Object.create(null)`. This syntax relies on the fact that objects created with `Object.create` without specifying a prototype are essentially "empty" objects, devoid of any inherited properties. This is a built-in JavaScript feature and does not require any additional libraries or imports.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to creating non-empty objects, some options include:

* Using the spread operator (`{...}`) to create a new object from an existing one.
* Using a library like Lodash (which provides a `_create` function) to create objects with default properties.

However, these alternatives may not provide significant performance benefits and should be used judiciously depending on your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Object literal vs Object.create(null) (better bench) (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: 2 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):