Benchmark: desestructuring vs new

Tests:

desestructuring
const lala = {name: 'lala'} const {name} = lala; console.log(name)
new
const lala = {name: 'lala'} const nameInLala = lala.name console.log(nameInLala)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
desestructuring
new

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:125.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/125.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 125 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
desestructuring	159815.2 Ops/sec
new	161358.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by two test cases: `desestructuring` and `new`. The script preparation code for both test cases is empty, which means that the JavaScript engine will use its default optimizations.

The HTML preparation code is also empty, which suggests that the benchmark only cares about the JavaScript execution performance and doesn't consider other factors like rendering or network latency.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are compared:

1. **Desestructuring**: This approach uses a feature called "object destructuring" (also known as object shorthand) to extract values from an object.
2. **New**: This approach creates a new object using the `new` keyword and then assigns the desired property value to it.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Desestructuring**:
	+ Pros: More concise, easier to read, and often faster than creating a new object and assigning values to it.
	+ Cons: Can be slower in older browsers or when dealing with very large objects due to the overhead of parsing the syntax.
* **New**:
	+ Pros: Works consistently across all browsers, including older ones, and can be more efficient for very large objects since it avoids the need to parse object syntax.
	+ Cons: More verbose, harder to read, and may lead to slower performance due to the additional overhead of creating a new object.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in this benchmark. However, object destructuring is a built-in feature of JavaScript, introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

No special features or syntax are used in this benchmark. Both test cases use standard JavaScript syntax and don't rely on any experimental or proprietary features.

**Other Alternatives**

If the benchmark were to include additional alternatives, some possible options could be:

* **Destructuring with spread operator**: Using the spread operator (`{...}`) instead of object destructuring.
* **New keyword with object literal syntax**: Creating a new object using object literal syntax (e.g., `const obj = { name: 'lala' };`).
* **Constructor function**: Creating a new object using a constructor function (e.g., `function Person() {} const person = new Person(); person.name = 'lala';`).

However, these alternatives would likely be less relevant to this specific benchmark, which primarily focuses on comparing the performance of desestructuring and the `new` keyword.

Related benchmarks:

desestructuring vs new (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: desestructuring vs new

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

desestructuring

new

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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