Benchmark: Prototype vs simulated private 4

Tests:

Simulated private
( function () { (function (root, factory) { var moduleName = 'TestA'; if (typeof define === 'function' && define.amd) { define(moduleName, factory); } else if (typeof exports === 'object') { module.exports = factory(); } else { root[moduleName] = factory(moduleName); } }(this, function (moduleName) { function TestA(element) { this.element = element; var self = this; var a = function () { return "a" }; var b = function () { return "b" }; var c = function () { return "c" }; (function initA() { console.log(self.element, a(), b(), c()); }()); } return TestA })); var r = 200; for(var i = 0; i < r; i++){ new TestA(new Date().getTime()); } }());
Prototype
( function () { (function (root, factory) { var moduleName = 'TestB'; if (typeof define === 'function' && define.amd) { define(moduleName, factory); } else if (typeof exports === 'object') { module.exports = factory(); } else { root[moduleName] = factory(moduleName); } }(this, function (moduleName) { function TestB(element) { this.element = element; this.initB(); } TestB.prototype.initB = function () { console.log(this.element, this.a(), this.b(), this.c()); }; TestB.prototype.a = function () { return "a" }; TestB.prototype.b = function () { return "b" }; TestB.prototype.c = function () { return "c" }; return TestB })); var r = 200; for(var i = 0; i < r; i++){ new TestB(new Date().getTime()); } }());
Prototype (single call)
( function () { (function (root, factory) { var moduleName = 'TestC'; if (typeof define === 'function' && define.amd) { define(moduleName, factory); } else if (typeof exports === 'object') { module.exports = factory(); } else { root[moduleName] = factory(moduleName); } }(this, function (moduleName) { function TestC(element) { this.element = element; this.initC(); } TestC.prototype = { constructor: TestC, initC: function() { console.log(this.element, this.a(), this.b(), this.c()); }, a: function() { return "a" }, b: function() { return "b" }, c: function() { return "c" } } return TestC })); var r = 200; for(var i = 0; i < r; i++){ new TestC(new Date().getTime()); } }());

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Simulated private
Prototype
Prototype (single call)

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.

I'll break down the benchmark test cases and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Test Cases:**

The benchmark consists of three test cases:

1. **Simulated private**: This test case uses a simulated private module (i.e., a module that is not actually loaded from disk). It creates 200 instances of the `TestA` function, which has a constructor that calls multiple functions (`a`, `b`, and `c`) in sequence.
2. **Prototype**: This test case uses a prototype-based implementation. It creates 200 instances of the `TestB` function, which also has a constructor that calls multiple functions (`a`, `b`, and `c`) in sequence. However, unlike `TestA`, this constructor does not use an immediately invoked function expression (IIFE).
3. **Prototype (single call)**: This test case is similar to the prototype-based implementation, but it only creates a single instance of the `TestC` function and calls its constructor once.

**Comparison:**

The benchmark compares the execution performance of these three test cases:

* **Simulated private**: Uses an IIFE to create a new scope for each instance of `TestA`. This approach is more memory-efficient but may incur additional overhead due to the creation of multiple scopes.
* **Prototype**: Uses the prototype chain to share methods between instances of `TestB`. This approach is more lightweight than the simulated private method, but it may lead to memory fragmentation and slower performance.
* **Prototype (single call)**: Creates a single instance of `TestC` and calls its constructor only once. This approach is similar to the prototype-based implementation but eliminates the overhead of creating multiple instances.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Simulated private**: Pros:
	+ More memory-efficient due to the use of IIFEs.
	+ May provide better performance due to reduced scope creation overhead.
* Cons:
	+ May incur additional overhead due to the creation of multiple scopes.
* **Prototype**: Pros:
	+ Lightweight and efficient in terms of memory usage.
	+ Fast method lookup using the prototype chain.
* Cons:
	+ May lead to memory fragmentation and slower performance.
	+ Requires careful implementation to avoid collisions between methods.
* **Prototype (single call)**: Pros:
	+ Similar benefits to the prototype-based implementation, but with reduced overhead due to only one instance creation.
* Cons:
	+ Eliminates the benefits of shared methods across multiple instances.

**Latest Benchmark Result:**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* The **Simulated private** test case has the highest execution rate (3.841229200363159 executions/second).
* The **Prototype** test case has a lower execution rate (1.6346546411514282 executions/second), but it is still faster than the **Prototype (single call)** test case (0.9903791546821594 executions/second).

These results suggest that the simulated private approach provides the best performance, followed by the prototype-based implementation and then the prototype (single call) approach.

Please note that these results may vary depending on the specific use case, implementation details, and hardware configuration.

Related benchmarks:

Prototype vs simulated private 4 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Simulated private vs Prototype vs Prototype (single call)

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Simulated private

Prototype

Prototype (single call)

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):