Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Prototype
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
proto vs noproto
Created:
9 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
proto
var a; a = function(){}; a.prototype.wat = function (){ r = 9 + 9; }; for(var i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ a.prototype.wat() }
noproto
var a; a = function(){}; a.wat = function (){ r = 9 + 9; }; for(var i = 0; i < 10000; i++){ a.wat() }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
proto
noproto
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 benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark definition is empty, which means that the script preparation code and HTML preparation code are not provided. This might be intentional, as some benchmarks require specific setup or configuration to run correctly. However, based on the individual test cases, it appears that the benchmark is testing the performance of assigning a property to an object versus just accessing the same property without assignment. **Individual Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. `proto`: This test case defines a function `a` with a prototype `wat`. The `wat` method is then assigned to the `prototype` of `a`. The test then executes the `wat` method 10,000 times in a loop. 2. `noproto`: This test case defines a function `a` and assigns the same `wat` method directly to `a`, without using the prototype. The test then executes the `wat` method 10,000 times in a loop. **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: * Using the prototype (`proto`) versus not using the prototype (`noproto`). **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** Using the Prototype: Pros: * This approach allows for more flexibility in defining methods on an object. * It's often used when working with classes or inheritance. Cons: * Accessing properties through the prototype can be slower due to the overhead of method resolution. * In some cases, this can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully. Not Using the Prototype: Pros: * This approach is generally faster and more direct. * It's often used when working with simple objects or functions that don't require inheritance. Cons: * This approach can be less flexible than using the prototype. * It might lead to repeated property definitions if not used carefully. **Library** In neither of the test cases is a library explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some benchmarks might use libraries like `lodash` or `underscore` for utility functions or methods. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in these benchmark definitions. The code appears to be standard ECMAScript 5+ syntax. **Other Alternatives** If you were to create a similar benchmark, you could consider testing other aspects of object-oriented programming, such as: * Inheritance * Method overriding * Property access with `this` vs. direct property access * Object creation and garbage collection Keep in mind that the best approach would depend on your specific use case and requirements. If you wanted to create a benchmark similar to this one, I would suggest using a tool like `BenchmarkJS` or `js-benchmark`, which provide more features and flexibility for creating benchmarks.
Related benchmarks:
TS Test: Object return vs. Prototype
Fat Arrow
Fat Arrow
Is plain object
Test checking of literal object types - v2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?