Benchmark: Destructure vs Traditional

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {a: 'a', b: 'b'};

Tests:

Destructure
const { a, b } = obj;
Traditional
const a = obj.a; const b = obj.b;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Destructure
Traditional

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Destructure	92688704.0 Ops/sec
Traditional	88435360.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring the performance of JavaScript destructure vs traditional assignment can be a fascinating experiment.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON benchmark defines two test cases:

1. **Destructure**: This test case uses destructuring syntax (`const { a, b } = obj;`) to extract values from an object.
2. **Traditional**: This test case uses traditional assignment syntax (`const a = obj.a; const b = obj.b;`) to achieve the same result.

**Options compared**

The two options are being compared in terms of their execution performance. The goal is to determine which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Destructure**:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable syntax.
		- Can improve code maintainability and reduce errors.
	+ Cons:
		- May lead to performance overhead due to the complexity of the parser and the need for additional checks.
* **Traditional**:
	+ Pros:
		- Well-established and widely supported syntax, making it easier to understand and optimize.
	+ Cons:
		- Longer and less readable code snippet.

In terms of execution performance, destructuring is often slower due to its syntax complexity. However, modern JavaScript engines have made significant progress in optimizing destructure syntax, so the difference may be smaller than expected.

**Library and purpose**

There is no specific library mentioned in the provided JSON benchmark definition. The tests only use built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The test case uses a modern JavaScript feature: **Destructuring syntax** (`const { a, b } = obj;`). This syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and has since become widely adopted.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* **Spread operator**: You can use the spread operator (`{ ...obj }`) to achieve similar results as destructuring.
* **Array destructuring**: Destructuring can also be used with arrays by using array destructuring syntax (`const [a, b] = obj;`).
* **Object literal assignment**: Another approach is to use object literal assignment (`obj.a`, `obj.b`) instead of traditional assignment.

These alternatives might not provide a significant performance difference in this specific benchmark but can be useful for exploring different programming paradigms and syntaxes.

Related benchmarks:

Destructure vs Traditional (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Destructure vs Traditional

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Destructure

Traditional

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):