Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Function vs reference
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
1 vs 2
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
function Animal() { this.type = "just an animal" } Animal.prototype.getType = function() { return this.type; } var animal = new Animal(); var out = "";
Tests:
1
for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++ ) { out = animal.getType(); }
2
for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++ ) { out = animal.type; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
1
2
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):
Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and test cases. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined as a JavaScript function that tests two different approaches to accessing an object property: 1. `animal.getType()` 2. `animal.type` Both approaches are compared in terms of performance using the "for" loop, which iterates 1 million times. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Method 1:** `animal.getType()` - This approach uses a method call to access the `type` property. 2. **Method 2:** `animal.type` - This approach accesses the property directly without using a method call. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Method 1 (method call):** * Pros: + Can be more readable and maintainable, as it clearly separates concerns between data access and behavior. + May be beneficial for polymorphism or overriding the property value in subclasses. * Cons: + Can incur additional overhead due to method lookups or calls. 2. **Method 2 (direct access):** * Pros: + Typically faster, as it bypasses method call overhead. + May be more suitable for simple, constant properties. * Cons: + Less readable and maintainable, as the property value is tied to its name. + May lead to naming conflicts or unintended changes. **Library and Purpose** The `Animal` class uses a JavaScript library that allows it to represent an animal object with a type property. The purpose of this library is likely to provide a simple, concrete example for benchmarking the performance differences between method calls and direct property access. **Special JS Feature or Syntax (None)** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to modify or extend this benchmark, here are some alternatives: 1. **Use a different data structure**: Instead of using an `Animal` class, consider using an array or object with dynamic property names. 2. **Add more complex logic**: Introduce conditional statements, loops, or functions within the benchmarking code to increase its complexity and realism. 3. **Test with different browsers or platforms**: Expand the benchmark to include multiple browsers, operating systems, or devices to better simulate real-world usage scenarios. Keep in mind that these alternatives would require additional modifications to the benchmark definition and test cases.
Related benchmarks:
Manual clone versus prototype extend
testtest132123asdasda
Test checking of literal object types
Test checking of literal object types - v2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?