Benchmark: ES6 Class vs Prototype vs Object Literal 4

Tests:

ES6 Class
class Point { constructor(x, y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; } } var p1 = new Point(10, 10); var p2 = new Point(10, -10);
Function Prototype
function Point(x, y){ this.x = x; this.y = y; } var p1 = new Point(10, 10); var p2 = new Point(10, -10);
Object Literal
function Point(x, y){ return { x, y } } var p1 = Point(10, 10); var p2 = Point(10, -10);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ES6 Class
Function Prototype
Object Literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 128 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ES6 Class	345837.8 Ops/sec
Function Prototype	294946.3 Ops/sec
Object Literal	814960960.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the speed and memory usage of three techniques for constructing class objects in JavaScript:

1. **ES6 Class**: Using a constructor function with `this` binding.
2. **Function Prototype**: Using a function expression with `this` binding.
3. **Object Literal**: Using an object literal syntax to create an anonymous object.

**Options Comparison**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches on the same test case, which creates two instances of a `Point` class (or an equivalent) and assigns them different values for `x` and `y`.

Pros and Cons:

* **ES6 Class**: This approach is generally considered more concise and readable than traditional constructors. However, it may incur overhead due to the use of `this` binding.
	+ Pros: Concise syntax, easy to read and maintain.
	+ Cons: Potential performance overhead due to `this` binding.
* **Function Prototype**: This approach allows for more control over the `this` context, but its syntax can be less readable than traditional constructors or ES6 classes.
	+ Pros: Tighter control over `this` context, no potential performance overhead.
	+ Cons: Less concise and readable syntax.
* **Object Literal**: This approach creates an anonymous object without declaring a constructor function. It's often used for lightweight objects or when the class is not meant to be instantiated.
	+ Pros: Lightweight, no potential performance overhead.
	+ Cons: Less readable and maintainable syntax, limited flexibility.

**Library Usage**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the test cases use built-in JavaScript features or libraries like `Lodash` for utility functions.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses ES6 class syntax (`class Point { ... }`) and function expression with `this` binding (`function Point(x, y) { ... }`). These are modern JavaScript features that provide concise ways to create objects. The use of `this` binding in the constructor function is a common pattern in JavaScript.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test these approaches using different syntax or libraries, you could consider alternatives like:

* Using traditional constructors (`function Point() { ... }`)
* Using module syntax with classes (`class Point { ... }`)
* Using a library like `React` or `Angular` for building complex components
* Using a library like `Lodash` for utility functions

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Related benchmarks:

ES6 Class vs Prototype vs Object Literal 4 (version: 0)

Test the speed and memory usage using 3 different techniques for constructing class objects.

Comparing performance of: ES6 Class vs Function Prototype vs Object Literal

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ES6 Class

Function Prototype

Object Literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):