Benchmark: Adding fields to functions

Tests:

fun-assign
var f; var sum = 0; for(var i = 0; i <= 1000; i += 1) { f = function(j) { return j; }; f.name = "f"; for (var j = 0; j <= 10000; j++) { sum += f(j); } } console.log(f.name);
no-assign-named
var f; var sum = 0; for(var i = 0; i <= 1000; i += 1) { f = function f(j) { return j; }; for (var j = 0; j <= 10000; j++) { sum += f(j); } } console.log(f.name);
object-assign
var f; var sum = 0; var o = {}; for(var i = 0; i <= 1000; i += 1) { f = function f(j) { return j; }; o.name = "f"; for (var j = 0; j <= 10000; j++) { sum += f(j); } } console.log(f.name);
define-prop
var f; var sum = 0; for(var i = 0; i <= 1000; i += 1) { f = function(j) { return j; }; Object.defineProperty(f, 'name', {value: 'f'}); for (var j = 0; j <= 10000; j++) { sum += f(j); } } console.log(f.name);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
fun-assign
no-assign-named
object-assign
define-prop

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 benchmark and explore what's being tested.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark suite, where multiple test cases are defined to measure the performance of different approaches for adding fields to functions.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is not explicitly stated in the JSON, but it can be inferred from the individual test cases. Each test case consists of:

1. A function `f` that takes a single argument `j`.
2. An assignment or property access operation on `f` to add a new field (e.g., `name`).
3. A loop that executes the assigned or accessed operation `n` times.
4. The final value of the assignment or property access is logged to the console.

**Options compared**

The four test cases compare different approaches for adding fields to functions:

1. **Assigning a new property**: `f.name = "f";` (Test Case: "fun-assign")
	* Pros: Simple and straightforward, easy to implement.
	* Cons: May lead to unnecessary object creation and property access overhead.
2. **Using the `Object.defineProperty()` method**: `Object.defineProperty(f, 'name', {value: 'f'});` (Test Case: "define-prop")
	* Pros: More explicit and flexible, allows for fine-grained control over property definitions.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to method calls and property access checks.
3. **Using a property assignment with an object**: `o.name = "f";` (Test Case: "object-assign")
	* Pros: Can be more efficient than assigning properties directly, as it avoids unnecessary property access overhead.
	* Cons: Requires the creation of an additional object (`o`) and may lead to increased memory allocation.
4. **Using a named function expression**: `function f(j) { return j; }` (Test Case: "no-assign-named")
	* Pros: Eliminates the need for property assignments, as the function is defined with a given name.
	* Cons: May lead to increased overhead due to function creation and lookup.

**Other considerations**

The benchmark also includes information about the browser, device platform, operating system, and executions per second. This data can be used to analyze performance variations across different environments and hardware configurations.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives for adding fields to functions might include:

1. Using a class expression or a class constructor function.
2. Utilizing a meta-programming library like Lodash's `assign` method.
3. Leveraging a functional programming approach, such as using a closure or a higher-order function.

However, these approaches are not represented in the provided benchmark definition and JSON.

In summary, the benchmark tests four different approaches for adding fields to functions: assigning properties directly, using the `Object.defineProperty()` method, utilizing a property assignment with an object, and leveraging named function expressions. Each approach has its pros and cons, and the benchmark helps identify performance variations across different environments and hardware configurations.

Related benchmarks:

Adding fields to functions (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: fun-assign vs no-assign-named vs object-assign vs define-prop

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

fun-assign

no-assign-named

object-assign

define-prop

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):