Benchmark: ES6 Class vs Prototype vs Object Literal v2 with Extends v3

Tests:

ES6 Class
class BaseClass { constructor() {} } class Point extends BaseClass { constructor(x, y) { super(); this.x = x; this.y = y; } add(point) { return new Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y); } sub(point) { return new Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y); } } var Point1 = Point; var p1 = new Point1(10, 10); var p2 = new Point1(10, -10); var sum = p1.add(p2); var dif = p1.sub(p2);
Function Prototype
function BaseConstructor() {} function Point2(x, y) { this.x = x; this.y = y; } Point2.prototype.add = function(point) { return new Point2(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y); } Point2.prototype.sub = function(point) { return new Point2(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y); } Object.setPrototypeOf(Object.setPrototypeOf(Point2, BaseConstructor).prototype, BaseConstructor.prototype); var p1 = new Point2(10, 10); var p2 = new Point2(10, -10); var sum = p1.add(p2); var dif = p1.sub(p2);
Object Literal
function PointX(x, y) { return {} } function Point3(x, y) { return { ...PointX(x, y), x, y, add: (point) => Point3(x + point.x, y + point.y), sub: (point) => Point3(x - point.x, y - point.y) } } var p1 = new Point3(10, 10); var p2 = new Point3(10, -10); var sum = p1.add(p2); var dif = p1.sub(p2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ES6 Class
Function Prototype
Object Literal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.2 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ES6 Class	1139673.1 Ops/sec
Function Prototype	1451231.8 Ops/sec
Object Literal	2642822.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

### Overview of the Benchmark

The benchmark outlined in the provided JSON tests the performance of three different methods for constructing class-like objects in JavaScript:
1. **ES6 Class**
2. **Function Prototype**
3. **Object Literal**

The benchmark measures both the speed (in terms of "Executions Per Second") and memory usage (though memory usage is not explicitly reported, we can infer it is a consideration in object creation methodologies).

### Test Cases and Their Approaches

1. **ES6 Class**:
    - **Implementation**:
      ```javascript
      class BaseClass {
          constructor() {}
      }
      
      class Point extends BaseClass {
          constructor(x, y) {
              super();
              this.x = x;
              this.y = y;
          }
          
          add(point) {
              return new Point(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y);
          }

sub(point) {
              return new Point(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y);
          }
      }
      ```
    - **Pros**:
        - Clean and modern syntax that's easier to read and understand.
        - Supports inheritance and encapsulation directly.
    - **Cons**:
        - Can incur additional overhead due to the class construct and prototype chaining, making instantiation potentially less performant compared to function prototypes.
    
2. **Function Prototype**:
    - **Implementation**:
      ```javascript
      function BaseConstructor() {}
      
      function Point2(x, y) {
          this.x = x;
          this.y = y;
      }
      
      Point2.prototype.add = function(point) {
          return new Point2(this.x + point.x, this.y + point.y);
      };
      
      Point2.prototype.sub = function(point) {
          return new Point2(this.x - point.x, this.y - point.y);
      };
      
      Object.setPrototypeOf(Object.setPrototypeOf(Point2, BaseConstructor).prototype, BaseConstructor.prototype);
      ```
    - **Pros**:
        - Function-based inheritance allows greater flexibility in creating objects.
        - Lower overhead for instantiation, which can lead to better performance compared to class instantiation.
    - **Cons**:
        - The syntax is less intuitive than the ES6 class syntax.
        - Prototype manipulation can lead to complexity, especially for those unfamiliar with JavaScript's prototype chain.
    
3. **Object Literal**:
    - **Implementation**:
      ```javascript
      function PointX(x, y) {
          return {};
      }
      
      function Point3(x, y) {
          return {
              ...PointX(x, y),
              x,
              y,
              add: (point) => Point3(x + point.x, y + point.y),
              sub: (point) => Point3(x - point.x, y - point.y)
          };
      }
      ```
    - **Pros**:
        - Very concise, making use of JavaScript's object literal syntax.
        - Use of arrow functions for methods provides a clear, modern approach to defining behavior.
    - **Cons**:
        - No true encapsulation or inheritance since each instance creates a new object.
        - Memory usage could potentially be higher if many instances are created, as each would have its own methods rather than sharing them via prototypes.

### Benchmark Results

From the benchmarking results:
- **Object Literal** technique recorded **631,363.13 executions per second**, making it the fastest of the three.
- **ES6 Class** followed with **99,783.59 executions per second**, showing significant overhead compared to the Object Literal approach.
- **Function Prototype** came last with **76,325.22 executions per second**, which highlights that the classic prototype-based approach is less performant than the two others in this context.

### Considerations and Alternatives

- **Readability vs Performance**: While the ES6 Class syntax is often favored for its readability, in high-performance scenarios (like games or heavy computations), developers might lean towards Object Literals or Function Prototypes due to their superior speeds.
- **Memory Usage**: Object Literal might yield performance benefits in speed but may incur memory penalties when instantiation is frequent, unlike prototypes where methods are shared.
- **Alternatives**:
    - **Factory Functions**: Instead of classes or using prototypes, factory functions can be a middle-ground approach, allowing for encapsulation without the overhead of class syntax.
    - **Libraries**: Using libraries like **lodash** or frameworks like **React** pushes developers to adopt different patterns for object creation and handling, often abstracting away direct object instantiation specifics.

In summary, the choice of object creation method in JavaScript should take into account not only speed but also maintainability, readability, and applicable use cases. Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, making them suited for different scenarios.

Related benchmarks:

ES6 Class vs Prototype vs Object Literal v2 with Extends v3 (version: 1)

Test the speed and memory usage using 3 different techniques for constructing class objects.

Comparing performance of: ES6 Class vs Function Prototype vs Object Literal

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ES6 Class

Function Prototype

Object Literal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):