Benchmark: ES6 Class vs Object Literal 100k runs 2

Tests:

ES6 Class
class Point { constructor(x, y, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h){ this.x = x; this.y = y; this.a = a; this.b = b; this.c = c; this.d = d; this.e = e; this.f = f; this.g = g; this.h = h; } } var items = []; for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { items.push(new Point(10, 10, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)); } console.log(items.length);
Object Literal
var items = []; for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { items.push({ x: 10, y: 10, a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4, e: 5, f: 6, g: 7, h: 8 }); } console.log(items.length);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ES6 Class
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 break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: ES6 Classes and Object Literals for creating objects with similar properties. The test creates an array of 100,000 objects using both methods and then logs the length of the array to measure the performance difference.

**Options Compared**

1. **ES6 Class**: This approach uses a class definition to create objects. In this case, the `Point` class has 11 properties (x, y, a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h) that are initialized in the constructor.
2. **Object Literal**: This approach uses an object literal syntax to create objects with similar properties.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **ES6 Class**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a more structured way of defining objects, which can improve code readability and maintainability.
		+ Can be used for encapsulation and inheritance.
	* Cons:
		+ Can result in slower performance due to the overhead of creating a class instance.
		+ May require additional setup and configuration (e.g., constructors, methods).
2. **Object Literal**:
	* Pros:
		+ Generally faster performance since object literals are more lightweight.
		+ Easy to use and requires minimal setup.
	* Cons:
		+ Can make code less readable and maintainable if not used carefully.
		+ May require additional properties (e.g., `this`) to access object properties.

**Library/Utility Used**

None, as this benchmark only uses built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It simply demonstrates the performance difference between two common approaches for creating objects in JavaScript.

**Alternative Approaches**

1. **Function Constructor**: Instead of using a class definition, you could use a function constructor to create objects.
2. **Prototypal Inheritance**: If you need to inherit properties from another object or prototype, you might consider using prototypal inheritance instead of classes.
3. **Arrays with Object Property Names**: You can also create an array of objects by specifying property names explicitly (e.g., `items.push({ x: 10, y: 10 });`).

Keep in mind that the choice between these approaches depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

The benchmark results show that Object Literal outperforms ES6 Class in this particular test. However, it's essential to consider other factors such as code maintainability, readability, and scalability when choosing an approach for your project.

Related benchmarks:

ES6 Class vs Object Literal 100k runs 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ES6 Class vs Object Literal

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ES6 Class

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):