Benchmark: closure vs proto vs class 3

Tests:

closure1
function MyFirstClosureClass (one, two) { let _one = one; let _two = two; let _result = null; this.compute = function () { _result = _one * _two * _one * _two; } this.printResult = function () { console.log(_result); } } const amt = 200; let contents = new Array(amt); for (let i = 0; i < amt; i ++) { contents[i] = new MyFirstClosureClass(Math.random(), Math.random()); contents[i].compute(); contents[i].printResult(); }
prototype1
function MyFirstProtoClass (one, two) { this._one = one; this._two = two; this._result = null; } MyFirstProtoClass.prototype.compute = function (){ this._result = this._one * this._two * this._one * this._two; }; MyFirstProtoClass.prototype.printResult = function (){ console.log(this._result); }; const amt = 200; let contents = new Array(amt); for (let i = 0; i < amt; i ++) { contents[i] = new MyFirstProtoClass(Math.random(), Math.random()); contents[i].compute(); contents[i].printResult(); }
classes1
class MyFirstTrueClass { constructor(one, two) { this._one = one; this._two = two; this._result = null; } compute (){ this._result = this._one * this._two * this._one * this._two; } printResult (){ console.log(this._result); } } const amt = 200; let contents = new Array(amt); for (let i = 0; i < amt; i ++) { contents[i] = new MyFirstTrueClass(Math.random(), Math.random()); contents[i].compute(); contents[i].printResult(); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
closure1
prototype1
classes1

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 14; Mobile; rv:126.0) Gecko/126.0 Firefox/126.0

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 126 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
closure1	535.5 Ops/sec
prototype1	516.8 Ops/sec
classes1	495.6 Ops/sec

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 its test cases.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents three different approaches to creating a class with a closure in JavaScript:

1. **Closure**: A self-invoking anonymous function that has access to its own scope, which is not accessible from outside.
2. **Prototype**: An object that inherits behavior from another object (the prototype), allowing for polymorphism and extension of methods.
3. **Class**: A syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) for defining classes, which provides a more structured way to create objects with state and behavior.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each approach:

* Closure: `function MyFirstClosureClass(one, two)` vs. an anonymous self-invoking function
* Prototype: `function MyFirstProtoClass(one, two)` vs. `MyFirstProtoClass.prototype`
* Class: `class MyFirstTrueClass { ... }` vs. a regular function

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Closure**
	* Pros:
		+ Allows for encapsulation of state and behavior
		+ Can be more concise than other approaches
	* Cons:
		+ Limited inheritance and polymorphism capabilities
2. **Prototype**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides easy inheritance and polymorphism capabilities
		+ Allows for extension of methods without redefining the prototype
	* Cons:
		+ Less explicit and less maintainable than classes
3. **Class**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a more structured way to create objects with state and behavior
		+ Offers better support for inheritance, polymorphism, and encapsulation
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose than other approaches

**Library and syntax**

The benchmark uses the following libraries:

* None explicitly mentioned

It also includes special JavaScript features:

* ES6 classes (`class MyFirstTrueClass { ... }`)
* Self-invoking anonymous functions (e.g., `function() {...}()`)

**Other considerations**

When choosing an approach, consider the specific requirements of your project. If you need a concise and self-contained solution with limited inheritance capabilities, a closure might be suitable. For more complex projects that require explicit inheritance, polymorphism, and encapsulation, prototype or class-based approaches might be better.

In addition to these options, other alternatives to create classes in JavaScript include:

* Inheritance using functions (e.g., `function MyFirstClass() { ... }` with inheritance from a base function)
* Mixins (functions that provide specific behavior for an object)
* Modules and exports (for managing dependencies and creating reusable code)

However, these approaches are less commonly used and might require more boilerplate code than classes.

**Benchmark result analysis**

The provided benchmark results show the number of executions per second for each test case. The results suggest that:

* Closure: 535.54 executions/second
* Prototype: 516.84 executions/second
* Class: 495.55 executions/second

These numbers indicate that closure-based approaches might be faster than prototype-based and class-based approaches, but the differences are relatively small. The benchmark result analysis should be interpreted with caution, as it depends on various factors such as hardware, JavaScript engine, and implementation details.

Please note that this explanation is intended to provide a general understanding of the benchmark and its test cases. For more detailed insights into performance optimizations or specific use cases, further investigation may be necessary.

Related benchmarks:

closure vs proto vs class 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: closure1 vs prototype1 vs classes1

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

closure1

prototype1

classes1

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):