Benchmark: module-pattern - MeasureThat.net

Script Preparation code:

var adder = {
	add: function(x, y) { return x + y; }
};

Tests:

Variant 1
var a = (function() { var outer = 1; return { add: function(x, y) { return adder.add(x, y); } }; })(); for(var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) { console.log(a.add(5,6)); }
Variant 2
var b = (function(adder) { var outer = 1; return { add: function(x, y) { return adder.add(x, y); } }; })(adder); for(var i = 0; i < 1000; ++i) { console.log(b.add(5,6)); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Variant 1
Variant 2

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 dive into the details of this JavaScript microbenchmark, MeasureThat.net.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests two different variants of a module pattern implementation for a simple addition function, `add`. The test case uses a self-invoking anonymous function (IIFE) to create an object with the `add` method. The `add` method takes two arguments and returns their sum using the provided `adder.add(x, y)` syntax.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two variants:

1. **Variant 1**: The IIFE is defined within itself, creating a new scope for the `outer` variable.
2. **Variant 2**: The IIFE takes an existing `adder` object as an argument and uses it to implement the `add` method.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Variant 1**

Pros:

* Simple and concise implementation
* Easy to understand and maintain

Cons:

* Creates a new scope for the `outer` variable, which might lead to unexpected behavior in certain situations (e.g., closure-related issues)

**Variant 2**

Pros:

* Reuses an existing `adder` object, reducing memory allocation and garbage collection overhead
* Encourages better code organization and modularity

Cons:

* Requires passing the `adder` object as an argument, which might be less readable or intuitive for some developers
* May lead to confusion if not used carefully (e.g., using a global variable instead of creating a module)

**Other considerations**

The benchmark does not test other aspects of JavaScript implementation, such as:

* Context switching and stack management
* Garbage collection performance
* Memory allocation and deallocation

Additionally, the benchmark only tests the `add` method's performance, without evaluating its correctness or error handling.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, the `adder` object is used as a library. The `adder.add(x, y)` syntax is an extension to the standard JavaScript `+` operator for addition. This allows users to easily create and reuse modules with a simple addition function.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The self-invoking anonymous function (IIFE) in both variants is a feature of modern JavaScript. It's used to create an immediately invoked function expression, which wraps the code inside itself and executes it immediately.

In summary, this benchmark tests two different module pattern implementations for a simple addition function, comparing their performance and memory usage. The results provide insights into the trade-offs between creating a new scope and reusing an existing object for better modularity and performance.

Related benchmarks:

module-pattern (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Variant 1 vs Variant 2

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Variant 1

Variant 2

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):