Benchmark: Hidden class test

Script Preparation code:

function addPoint1(x, y) {
    this.x = x;
    this.y = y;
    return this;
}

function addPoint2(x, y) {
    this.x = x;
    this.y = y;
    this.z = 0;
    return this;
}

Tests:

case1
var p1 = new addPoint1(1, 2); var p2 = new addPoint1(3, 4); var p3 = new addPoint1(5, 6); var p4 = new addPoint1(7, 8); var p5 = new addPoint1(17, 8); p1.z = 1; p2.z = 2; p3.z = 3; p4.z = 3; p5.z = 3; console.log(p1.z, p2.z, p3.z, p4.z, p5.z);
case2
var p1 = new addPoint1(1, 2); var p2 = new addPoint1(3, 4); var p3 = new addPoint1(5, 6); var p4 = new addPoint1(7, 8); var p5 = new addPoint1(17, 8); p1.z = 1; p2.a = 2; p3.b = 3; p4.c = 2; p5.d = 3; console.log(p1.z, p2.a, p3.b, p4.c, p5.d);
case3
var p1 = new addPoint2(1, 2); var p2 = new addPoint2(3, 4); var p3 = new addPoint2(5, 6); var p4 = new addPoint2(7, 8); var p5 = new addPoint2(17, 8); p1.z = 1; p2.z = 2; p3.z = 3; p4.z = 3; p5.z = 3; console.log(p1.z, p2.z, p3.z, p4.z, p5.z);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
case1
case2
case3

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
case1	109960.2 Ops/sec
case2	103175.3 Ops/sec
case3	103430.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what is being tested on MeasureThat.net and explain the different approaches compared.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition provided is a JavaScript code that creates instances of two classes: `addPoint1` and `addPoint2`. The classes have properties `x`, `y`, `z`, `a`, `b`, `c`, and `d`.

**Script Preparation Code**
The script preparation code defines the `addPoint1` and `addPoint2` classes. These classes have constructors that initialize the instance variables with values from the function arguments.

```javascript
function addPoint1(x, y) {
    this.x = x;
    this.y = y;
    return this;
}

function addPoint2(x, y) {
    this.x = x;
    this.y = y;
    this.z = 0;
    return this;
}
```

**Hidden Classes**
The `addPoint1` class uses a technique called "hidden classes" to optimize performance. In traditional JavaScript classes, the browser has to keep track of all possible property combinations at runtime. By using a hidden class, the browser can store a single class object that contains metadata about the instance variables and their values.

**Options Compared**
The benchmark compares three different approaches:

1. **Case 1**: `addPoint1` with no additional properties (`a`, `b`, etc.). This is similar to the traditional JavaScript class implementation.
2. **Case 2**: `addPoint1` with additional properties (`a`, `b`, etc.), but without using hidden classes.
3. **Case 3**: `addPoint2`, which does not use hidden classes.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Case 1 (addPoint1)**:
	+ Pros: Easy to implement, well-understood by developers.
	+ Cons: May lead to slower performance due to the overhead of traditional JavaScript class implementation.
* **Case 2 (addPoint1 with additional properties)**:
	+ Pros: Still easy to implement, but may have better performance compared to Case 1.
	+ Cons: Requires careful consideration of property combinations and metadata storage.
* **Case 3 (addPoint2)**:
	+ Pros: Optimized for hidden classes, which can lead to faster performance.
	+ Cons: May require more complex implementation, and the benefits may be subtle.

**Other Considerations**

* **Library Usage**: The benchmark uses no external libraries. If it were to use a library, it might impact the results.
* **Special JS Features or Syntax**: There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**
If you wanted to create similar benchmarks for other languages, you could use different approaches:

* For example, if you wanted to test the performance of Java's class loading mechanism, you could compare implementations using:
	+ Traditional Java class loading (no optimizations).
	+ Ahead-of-time compilation with hidden classes.
	+ Just-in-time compilation without hidden classes.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require careful consideration of language-specific features and mechanisms.

Related benchmarks:

Hidden class test (version: 10)

Hidden class test

Comparing performance of: case1 vs case2 vs case3

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

case1

case2

case3

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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