Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
constructor vs literal
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Constructor vs Literal
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var objectConstructed = new Object(); objectConstructed.foo = "bar";
Tests:
Constructor
var objectConstructed = new Object(); objectConstructed.foo = "bar";
Literal
var objectLiteral = {"foo":"bar"};
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Constructor
Literal
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! The provided benchmark is designed to compare two approaches to creating objects in JavaScript: constructors and literal syntax. **What are being tested?** In this benchmark, we're comparing the performance of two ways to create an object: 1. **Constructor**: Using the `new` keyword to create a new instance of an object. For example: `var objectConstructed = new Object();` 2. **Literal syntax**: Creating an object directly using the literal syntax. For example: `var objectLiteral = { "foo": "bar" };` **Options compared** The benchmark is comparing two options: 1. **Constructor**: Using the `new` keyword to create a new instance of an object. 2. **Literal syntax**: Creating an object directly using the literal syntax. **Pros and Cons of each approach** * **Constructor**: + Pros: Can be useful when you need to initialize properties with default values or perform other setup tasks before creating the object. + Cons: Can result in slower performance compared to literal syntax because it involves function call overhead. * **Literal syntax**: + Pros: Generally faster and more concise than constructor-based approaches. + Cons: Requires that you specify all property names and values explicitly, which can be cumbersome if you need to create objects with many properties. **Other considerations** When creating objects in JavaScript, it's essential to consider the following: * **Property lookup**: In both cases, accessing a property of an object using its name (e.g., `objectConstructed.foo`) is generally fast. However, if you're performing complex computations or dynamic property lookups, this might impact performance. * **Garbage collection**: Both constructors and literal syntax can lead to garbage collection overhead if the objects are short-lived. **Library usage** There doesn't appear to be any libraries used in this benchmark. **Special JS features** This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features like `let`, `const`, `async/await`, or ES6 classes. However, it's worth noting that these features can impact performance in certain scenarios. **Benchmark preparation code and HTML preparation code** The provided script preparation code creates an object with a single property (`foo`) set to `"bar"`. The HTML preparation code is empty. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches or test cases, here are some ideas: * **ES6 classes**: Use `class` syntax to create objects. * **Array-based objects**: Create objects using an array and then accessing properties by index. * **Proxy objects**: Use the Proxy object constructor to create dynamic objects with complex property handling. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be directly comparable to the original benchmark, as they may introduce additional complexities or performance overheads.
Related benchmarks:
Object.create(null) vs Object literal
javascript new vs Object.create 2
javascript new vs Object.create 3
new object vs new instance of new class
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?