Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
es6 vs prototype class
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Es6 vs Prototype
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
Es6
class Es6Point { constructor(x, y) { this.x = x; this.y = y; } add(point) { return new Es6Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y); } sub(point) { return new Es6Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y); } } const p1 = new Es6Point(10, 10); const p2 = new Es6Point(10, -10); const sum = p1.add(p2); const dif = p1.sub(p2);
Prototype
function ProtoPoint(x, y) { this.x = x; this.y = y; } ProtoPoint.prototype.add = function(point) { return new ProtoPoint(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y); } ProtoPoint.prototype.sub = function(point) { return new ProtoPoint(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y); } const p1 = new ProtoPoint(10, 10); const p2 = new ProtoPoint(10, -10); const sum = p1.add(p2); const dif = p1.sub(p2);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Es6
Prototype
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:135.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/135.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 135 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=596449" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Prototype
960K/s
Es6
931K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Prototype
960,013 Ops/sec
Es6
930,984 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and discussed. **What is being tested?** The primary focus of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches to create a class or object in JavaScript: 1. **ES6 Classes**: The first test case uses ES6 classes (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to define a `Point` class with methods `add` and `sub`. 2. **Prototype-Based Classes**: The second test case uses the prototype-based inheritance model, which was introduced in ECMAScript 1997. It defines a `ProtoPoint` function that returns an object with `x` and `y` properties, and then adds two methods `add` and `sub` to its prototype. **Options being compared** The benchmark compares the performance of: 1. **ES6 Classes**: The first test case uses ES6 classes, which is a more modern and commonly used approach in JavaScript. 2. **Prototype-Based Classes**: The second test case uses the traditional prototype-based inheritance model, which was widely used before ES6 classes were introduced. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: **ES6 Classes** Pros: * More concise and readable code * Easier to maintain and extend * Better support for static methods, properties, and interfaces Cons: * May be slower than prototype-based approaches due to the overhead of class metadata * Limited support for older browsers that don't support ES6 classes **Prototype-Based Classes** Pros: * Wide compatibility with older browsers and environments * Easier to implement and debug * Can be more flexible in certain scenarios (e.g., when using `Object.create()`) Cons: * More verbose code compared to ES6 classes * May require more manual management of object prototypes **Other considerations** When deciding between these approaches, consider the specific requirements of your project, such as: * Compatibility with older browsers or environments * Readability and maintainability of code * Performance and scalability needs **Library and special JS features** Neither test case uses any external libraries. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of ES6 classes and prototype-based classes. **Special JS features (not mentioned)** Since neither test case uses any special JavaScript features, there's no explanation needed. **Alternatives** Some alternatives to consider when creating a class or object in JavaScript include: * **Function constructors**: Using functions as constructors (e.g., `function Point(x, y) { ... }`). * **Object literal syntax**: Creating objects using the object literal syntax (e.g., `{ x: 0, y: 0 }`). * **Module-based classes**: Using modules to define and export classes. Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on the specific needs of your project.
Related benchmarks
Array.prototype.push vs Array.prototype.shift
in vs Object.hasOwn vs Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty
Instanceof VS toString for date comparison when using objects
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?