Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
static class vs functions
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
class vs functions
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
class
class Trig { static cos(z) { return Math.cos(z); } static sin(z) { return Math.sin(z); } static tan(z) { return Math.tan(z); } static cosh(z) { return Math.cosh(z); } static sinh(z) { return Math.sinh(z); } static tanh(z) { return Math.tanh(z); } static acos(z) { return Math.acos(z); } static asin(z) { return Math.asin(z); } static atan(z) { return Math.atan(z); } static acosh(z) { return Math.acosh(z); } static asinh(z) { return Math.asinh(z); } static atanh(z) { return Math.atanh(z); } }
functions
function cos(z) { return Math.cos(z); } function sin(z) { return Math.sin(z); } function tan(z) { return Math.tan(z); } function cosh(z) { return Math.cosh(z); } function sinh(z) { return Math.sinh(z); } function tanh(z) { return Math.tanh(z); } function acos(z) { return Math.acos(z); } function asin(z) { return Math.asin(z); } function atan(z) { return Math.atan(z); } function acosh(z) { return Math.acosh(z); } function asinh(z) { return Math.asinh(z); } function atanh(z) { return Math.atanh(z); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
class
functions
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
10 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Goanna/6.8 Firefox/128.0 PaleMoon/33.9.1
Browser/OS:
Pale Moon (Firefox Variant) 33 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=620346" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
functions
2139.5M/s
class
62K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
functions
2,139,480,960 Ops/sec
class
61,637 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. The benchmark compares two approaches to implement mathematical functions in JavaScript: static classes vs functions. **Static Classes** In this approach, we define a class `Trig` with static methods for each mathematical function (e.g., `cos(z)`, `sin(z)`, etc.). These methods simply call the corresponding built-in `Math` method to perform the calculation. **Functions** In this approach, we define separate named functions for each mathematical function (e.g., `function cos(z) { ... }`). These functions also call the corresponding built-in `Math` method to perform the calculation. **What's being tested?** The benchmark measures the performance difference between these two approaches. Specifically, it tests: * The execution speed of each approach in terms of **executions per second** on a given browser (Firefox 91) and device platform (Desktop Windows). **Pros and Cons:** **Static Classes:** Pros: * Can be more concise and easier to read, as the functions are defined within the class. * May be faster due to reduced function call overhead. Cons: * Can lead to tighter coupling between functions, making it harder to maintain or refactor the code. * May require additional boilerplate code for error handling or parameter validation. **Functions:** Pros: * More flexible and modular, as each function can be easily reused or replaced independently. * Easier to test and debug individual components. Cons: * Can lead to more verbose code and increased overhead due to function call overhead. * May require additional setup or configuration for error handling or parameter validation. **Other Considerations:** * The benchmark results are based on Firefox 91 and Desktop Windows. Future benchmarks should consider other browsers, platforms, and JavaScript engines to ensure consistent and representative comparisons. * The `executionsPerSecond` metric measures performance in terms of raw speed. However, this may not accurately reflect real-world use cases or applications where code readability, maintainability, and scalability are more important. **Libraries and Special JS Features:** There are no libraries used in this benchmark. However, the use of named functions (`function cos(z) { ... }`) is a common JavaScript feature that can be used to define reusable functions. **Alternatives:** Other approaches to implement mathematical functions in JavaScript include: * **Closures**: Using closures to create private, encapsulated functions for each mathematical operation. * **Method chaining**: Combining multiple method calls to reduce function call overhead and improve readability. * **Object creation**: Creating objects with methods that perform the mathematical operations, similar to the static class approach. These alternatives can offer trade-offs between performance, conciseness, flexibility, and maintainability, depending on the specific use case and requirements.
Related benchmarks
object.assign vs new class extends
function vs class method vs new function method
function vs class method vs new function method v2
Comparison of classes vs prototypes vs object literals also including the inheritance
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?