Benchmark: Prototype vs simulated private bench (1000)

Script Preparation code:

var r = 1000;

Tests:

Simulated private
( function (r, resultsA) { (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 = r || 100; var resultsA = []; for(var i = 0; i < r; i++){ var d = new Date().getTime(); resultsA.push(new TestA(d)); } }());
Prototype
( function (r, resultsB) { (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 = r || 100; var resultsB = []; for(var i = 0; i < r; i++){ var d = new Date().getTime(); resultsB.push(new TestB(d)); } }());
Prototype (single call)
( function (r, resultsC) { (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 = r || 100; var resultsC = []; for(var i = 0; i < r; i++){ var d = new Date().getTime(); resultsC.push(new TestC(d)); } }());

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.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark consists of three test cases:

1. **Prototype**: This test case creates an instance of the `TestA` class, which has a private property (`a`, `b`, `c`) that is only accessible through the prototype chain.
2. **Simulated Private**: This test case creates an instance of the `TestB` class, which has a private method (`initB`) that is called on the instance's prototype.
3. **Prototype (single call)**: This test case creates a single instance of the `TestC` class, which has a private property and method (`a`, `b`, `c`, `initC`) defined directly on the prototype.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Prototype Chain**: In this approach, the private properties and methods are defined on the prototype chain of the `TestA` class. This allows instances to access these members without explicitly exposing them.
2. **Simulated Private**: In this approach, the private method (`initB`) is called on the instance's prototype, rather than being an instance property.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Prototype Chain**:
	* Pros: Instances can access private members through the prototype chain, allowing for more flexibility in how classes are designed.
	* Cons: Can lead to increased complexity and harder-to-debug code if not used carefully.
2. **Simulated Private**:
	* Pros: Encourages a more traditional, encapsulated design pattern, making it easier to reason about class behavior.
	* Cons: Requires instances to access private members through the prototype chain or other workarounds, which can be less intuitive.

**Other Considerations**

1. **ES6 Classes**: The test cases use ES6 classes, which provide a more modern and expressive way of defining classes than traditional JavaScript inheritance patterns.
2. **Private Members**: Both `TestA` and `TestC` define private members using the `#` syntax (e.g., `#a`, `#b`, etc.). This feature is only available in ECMAScript 2020 and later.

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show:

1. **Prototype (single call)**: The fastest execution rate, suggesting that this approach has some performance advantages.
2. **Prototype**: Slightly slower than the Prototype (single call) test case, but still relatively fast.
3. **Simulated Private**: The slowest of the three test cases, indicating that this approach may have significant overhead or complexity.

Please note that these results are specific to the given benchmark and may not generalize to other scenarios or use cases.

Related benchmarks:

Prototype vs simulated private bench (1000) (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):