Benchmark: Object.assign vs prototype

Tests:

Extend prototype
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { String.prototype.toBinary = function () { let output = ''; for (let i = 0; i < this.length; i++) { output += this[i].charCodeAt(0).toString(2) + " "; } return output; } String.prototype.toHex = function () { let output = ''; for (let i = 0; i < this.length; i++) { output += this[i].charCodeAt(0).toString(8) + " "; } return output; } }
Object.assign
for (let i = 0; i < 1000; i++) { Object.assign(String.prototype, { toBinary() { let output = ''; for (let i = 0; i < this.length; i++) { output += this[i].charCodeAt(0).toString(2) + " "; } return output; }, toHex() { let output = ''; for (let i = 0; i < this.length; i++) { output += this[i].charCodeAt(0).toString(8) + " "; } return output; } }); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Extend prototype
Object.assign

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.

I'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, and it's used to compare two approaches: extending the prototype of a string object using `Object.assign` versus creating a new function on the prototype directly.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Extend Prototype**: This approach uses `Object.assign` to add two new methods (`toBinary` and `toHex`) to the `String.prototype`.
2. **Object.assign**: This approach creates a new object with the same properties as the original string, including the newly added `toBinary` and `toHex` methods.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Extend Prototype**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise code
		+ Less overhead in terms of memory allocation and function creation
	* Cons:
		+ May not be supported by older browsers or versions of JavaScript that don't support `Object.assign`
2. **Object.assign**
	* Pros:
		+ Wide browser support, including older versions
		+ Allows for easier testing and debugging
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose code
		+ More overhead in terms of memory allocation and function creation

**Library Used**

None.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark uses the `charCodeAt` method to convert characters to their ASCII codes, which is a built-in JavaScript method. It also uses the `toString` method with different radix values (2 for binary, 8 for hexadecimal) to format the output.

**Other Alternatives**

There are other ways to achieve similar results:

1. Using `String.prototype.toString.call()` instead of `charCodeAt`
2. Using a library like Lodash to extend the prototype
3. Creating a new class instead of extending the prototype

Note that these alternatives may have different performance implications and trade-offs.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The provided JSON doesn't contain any code, but it's assumed that the test case is prepared using the `for` loop in the benchmark definition. The loop iterates 1000 times to create a large array of strings, which are then used as input for the benchmarking tests.

Related benchmarks:

Object.assign vs prototype (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Extend prototype vs Object.assign

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Extend prototype

Object.assign

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):