Benchmark: extends class - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

class Foo {
    say() {
        () => {}
    }
}

class FooBar extends Foo {}
  
const foo = new FooBar()
foo.say()

Tests:

class
class Foo { say() { () => {} } } const foo = new Foo() foo.say()
extends
class Foo { say() { () => {} } } class FooBar extends Foo {} const foo = new FooBar() foo.say()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
class
extends

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 MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark definitions:

1. **"extends class"`: This test case creates a JavaScript class `Foo` with a method `say()` that returns an empty function `() => {}`. The test then creates another class `FooBar` that extends the first one using the `extends` keyword.
2. **"class"`**: This test case only defines a single class `Foo` without any inheritance.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Simple Class Definition**: Creating a class with just a constructor and no inheritance (`"class Foo {\r\n  say() {\r\n    () => {}\r\n  }\r\n}"`).
2. **Class with Inheritance**: Creating a class that extends another class using the `extends` keyword (`"class FooBar extends Foo {}\r\n  \r\nconst foo = new FooBar()\r\nfoo.say()"`).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Simple Class Definition**:
	+ Pros: Less overhead, faster execution.
	+ Cons: May not accurately represent real-world scenarios where inheritance is used.
* **Class with Inheritance**:
	+ Pros: More accurate representation of real-world scenarios.
	+ Cons: More complex to implement, potentially slower execution due to the overhead of method lookups.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries mentioned in this benchmark. However, it does use a special JavaScript feature called **arrow functions**, which were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). The `() => {}` syntax defines an anonymous function using an arrow function expression. This feature is used in both benchmark definitions.

**Other Alternatives**

MeasureThat.net provides various alternatives to compare different approaches, such as:

* Comparing the execution time of a simple class definition versus a complex one.
* Measuring the performance impact of using different JavaScript engines or browsers.
* Comparing the performance of different optimization techniques, like minification or compression.

By running benchmarks on MeasureThat.net, developers can gain insights into the performance characteristics of their code and identify potential bottlenecks to optimize their applications.

Related benchmarks:

extends class (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: class vs extends

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

class

extends

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):