Benchmark: constant static vs hardcoded

Tests:

a
class A{ static get CONSTANT (){ return 1} run(){ let sum = 0 for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++){ sum += A.CONSTANT } console.log(sum) } } const a = new A() a.run()
b
class B{ run(){ const CONSTANT = 1 let sum = 0 for (i = 0; i < 1000; i++){ sum += CONSTANT } console.log(sum) } } const b = new B() b.run()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
a
b

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 is comparing two approaches to accessing a constant value in JavaScript:

1. Using a static class property (constant)
2. Hardcoding the constant value directly in the code

**Test Case 1: "a"**

This test case uses a class `A` with a static property `CONSTANT` initialized to 1. The `run()` method loops 1000 times, adding `A.CONSTANT` to a sum variable. At each iteration, it increments `i` and logs the final sum.

**Test Case 2: "b"**

This test case uses a class `B` with a hardcoded constant value `CONSTANT` initialized to 1. The `run()` method loops 1000 times, adding `CONSTANT` to a sum variable. There is no instance creation of `B`, as the value is directly accessible.

**Comparison**

The main difference between these two approaches is how the constant value is accessed:

* In test case "a", the constant value is accessed through the static property `A.CONSTANT`. This means that every time the `run()` method is called, a new instance of class `A` is created, and this constant property is shared across all instances.
* In test case "b", the constant value is hardcoded directly in the code. There is no instance creation or sharing.

**Pros and Cons**

**Using static class properties (constant):**

Pros:

* Easier to maintain and modify the constant value
* Can be used with inheritance and polymorphism

Cons:

* Performance overhead due to instance creation and property lookup
* May lead to performance issues if not optimized correctly

**Hardcoding constants:**

Pros:

* Faster access times, as it eliminates the need for property lookup and instance creation
* More straightforward and efficient code

Cons:

* Less maintainable and harder to modify the constant value
* May make the code less modular and reusable

**Other Considerations**

One additional consideration is the use of `const` in JavaScript. In both test cases, a constant value is used. However, there's no explicit declaration of `const` in these examples. If we were to rewrite the tests with explicit `const` declarations, it would make the code more readable and maintainable.

**Library Usage**

In neither of the provided benchmark definitions, any libraries are explicitly mentioned or used. The code relies solely on vanilla JavaScript features and classes.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There is no use of special JavaScript features like async/await, generators, or closures in these examples.

**Other Alternatives**

To further compare these approaches, other alternatives could be explored:

* Using a module system (e.g., ES6 modules) to encapsulate the constant value
* Defining a global constant variable using `window.CONSTANT` or similar approach
* Using an external configuration file or resource (e.g., JSON) to store the constant value

By testing these alternatives, you could gain a deeper understanding of how different approaches affect performance and maintainability.

Related benchmarks:

constant static vs hardcoded (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: a vs b

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

a

b

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):