Benchmark: Passing as param vs destructuring internally

Tests:

Destructure
const obj = {a: { e: { i: 6 } } }; const destructureInternally = (obj) => { const { i } = obj.a.e; console.log(i); } destructureInternally(obj);
Pass as param
const obj = {a: { e: { i: 6 } } }; const destructureInternally = (param) => { console.log(param); } destructureInternally(obj.a.e.i);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Destructure
Pass as param

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 provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared options, pros and cons of those approaches, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The benchmark is designed to compare two different methods of accessing nested properties in JavaScript: passing as a parameter versus destructuring internally. The test cases aim to determine which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Destructure**: This test case uses the `destructureInternally` function, which takes an object as input and returns the value of the nested property `i`. The code is:
```
const obj = {a: { e: { i: 6 } }};
const destructureInternally = (obj) => {
  const { i } = obj.a.e;
  console.log(i);
}
destructureInternally(obj);
```
2. **Pass as param**: This test case uses the `destructureInternally` function with a parameter, which takes an object or property value as input and returns its value. The code is:
```
const obj = {a: { e: { i: 6 } }};
const destructureInternally = (param) => {
  console.log(param);
}
destructureInternally(obj.a.e.i);
```
**Comparison**

The two test cases compare the performance of accessing nested properties using:

* **Destructuring internally**: This approach uses the syntax `{ propertyName }` to extract a property value from an object. It's a shorthand way of writing `obj.propertyName`.
* **Passing as a parameter**: In this approach, the function takes an object or property value as input and explicitly extracts the desired value using dot notation (e.g., `param i`).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Destructuring internally**:
	+ Pros: concise syntax, efficient way to access properties in objects.
	+ Cons: may not be readable for complex nested structures, can lead to "magic strings" if property names are hardcoded.
* **Passing as a parameter**:
	+ Pros: flexible, allows for more control over the extraction process, easier to understand for complex nested structures.
	+ Cons: less concise syntax, may require additional type checks or casting.

**Other Considerations**

* **Library usage**: Neither test case uses any external libraries. The `console.log` function is used only for debugging purposes, which is not relevant to the benchmark result.
* **Special JS features**: There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in these test cases.

**Alternatives**

If you wanted to explore alternative approaches, you could consider:

* Using `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor` and `Object.getPrototypeOf` methods to access nested properties, like this:
```
const obj = {a: { e: { i: 6 } }};
const destructureInternally = (obj) => {
  const descriptor = Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor(obj, 'a.e.i');
  console.log(descriptor.value);
}
destructureInternally(obj);
```
This approach uses the `Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptor` method to retrieve the property descriptor for a given property path and then extracts the value using the `value` property of the descriptor.

Another alternative would be to use libraries like Lodash or Moment.js, which provide utility functions for working with objects and arrays. However, these approaches are not directly related to the original benchmark question and may introduce additional overhead or dependencies.

Related benchmarks:

Passing as param vs destructuring internally (version: 0)

Generated benchmark as a result of a PR discussion

Comparing performance of: Destructure vs Pass as param

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Destructure

Pass as param

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):