Benchmark: inheritance new vs Object.create

Tests:

new operator
function foo(){} foo.prototype = { foo_prop: "foo val" }; function bar(){} var proto = new foo; proto.bar_prop = "bar val"; bar.prototype = proto; var inst = new bar; console.log(inst.foo_prop); console.log(inst.bar_prop);
Object.create method
function foo(){} foo.prototype = { foo_prop: "foo val" }; function bar(){} var proto = Object.create( foo.prototype ); proto.bar_prop = "bar val"; bar.prototype = proto; var inst = new bar; console.log(inst.foo_prop); console.log(inst.bar_prop);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
new operator
Object.create method

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.1.1 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
new operator	826351.2 Ops/sec
Object.create method	626736.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking test cases and explain what is being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches for inheritance in JavaScript: using the `new` operator versus `Object.create`.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Using the `new` operator**: This approach creates a new instance of an object by calling the constructor function and passing no arguments.
2. **Using `Object.create()`**: This approach creates a new object by cloning the prototype of another object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**New Operator:**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Easier to understand for beginners

Cons:

* Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., creating multiple prototypes)
* May incur additional overhead due to object creation and prototype chain lookup

**Object.create():**

Pros:

* Provides more control over the inheritance chain
* Allows for more flexibility in creating complex prototypical relationships

Cons:

* Can be less readable and more verbose than using the `new` operator
* Requires a deeper understanding of JavaScript's prototype system

**Library Used: None**

There is no explicit library used in these benchmarking tests. However, it's worth noting that both approaches rely on JavaScript's built-in `Object` and `Prototype` objects.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are being tested in these benchmarking tests.

**Other Considerations**

* **Memory Allocation**: Both approaches allocate memory for the new object, which can impact performance. However, the `new` operator might incur additional overhead due to the creation of a new prototype object.
* **Prototype Chain Lookup**: When using the `Object.create()` approach, the lookup process for the prototype chain is more explicit and potentially slower than when using the `new` operator.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for inheritance in JavaScript include:

1. **Class-based inheritance**: Using classes with inheritance methods like `extends`.
2. **Prototype chaining**: Creating objects manually by setting up a prototype chain.
3. **Higher-order functions**: Using functions like `curry()` or `bind()` to create reusable, composable functions.

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of readability, performance, and complexity, depending on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

inheritance new vs Object.create (version: 0)

Compare inheritance with new vs Object.create

Comparing performance of: new operator vs Object.create method

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

new operator

Object.create method

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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