Benchmark: Compare performance between 2 constructors pattern

Script Preparation code:

function CarA( model, year, miles ) {
  this.model = model;
  this.year = year;
  this.miles = miles;
 
  this.toString = function () {
    return this.model + " has done " + this.miles + " miles";
  };
}

function CarB( model, year, miles ) {
  this.model = model;
  this.year = year;
  this.miles = miles; 
}
 
CarB.prototype.toString = function () {
  return this.model + " has done " + this.miles + " miles";
};

Tests:

Basic constructor pattern
var civic = new CarA( "Honda Civic", 2009, 20000 ); console.log( civic.toString() );
Constructor with prototype pattern
var civic = new CarB( "Honda Civic", 2009, 20000 ); console.log( civic.toString() );

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Basic constructor pattern
Constructor with prototype pattern

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 explanation of the benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two constructors patterns: the traditional constructor pattern and the prototype pattern. The script preparation code includes two functions, `CarA` and `CarB`, which represent these two patterns. Both functions take three parameters: `model`, `year`, and `miles`. They also define a `toString()` method that returns a string representation of the object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of the following options:

1. **Traditional Constructor Pattern**: `CarA` function, which creates an object using the traditional constructor pattern. This approach defines the prototype chain explicitly.
2. **Prototype Pattern**: `CarB` function, which uses the prototype pattern to create objects. In this approach, the prototype is not defined explicitly.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Traditional Constructor Pattern (CarA)**:
	* Pros: More explicit control over the prototype chain, easier to debug.
	* Cons: Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new object using `new`.
2. **Prototype Pattern (CarB)**:
	* Pros: Can be faster since it doesn't require creating a new object with `new`.
	* Cons: Less explicit control over the prototype chain, can lead to issues if not handled carefully.

**Library**

There is no specific library mentioned in the benchmark definition or individual test cases. However, some popular libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js might be used for similar comparisons in other benchmarks.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript syntax and features.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to the constructor pattern include:

1. **Function Constructor**: Using a function expression instead of a traditional constructor function.
2. **Class Syntax**: Using the `class` keyword to define classes, which can be used in place of constructors.
3. **Module Patterns**: Using module patterns like IIFE (Immediately Invoked Function Expression) or CommonJS modules.

These alternatives might be compared in other benchmarks, but are not relevant to this specific comparison between traditional constructor pattern and prototype pattern.

Related benchmarks:

Compare performance between 2 constructors pattern (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Basic constructor pattern vs Constructor with prototype pattern

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Basic constructor pattern

Constructor with prototype pattern

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):