Benchmark: Constructor vs object literal 2

Tests:

Object literal
const a = []; let i = 0; while (i < 10000) { const d = {}; a.push({ b: i }); i++; }
Constructor
const a = []; const c = function(i) { this.b = i; } let i = 0; while (i < 10000) { a.push(new c(i)); i++; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Object literal
Constructor

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 world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition and Purpose**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which describes two test cases: "Object literal" and "Constructor". The benchmark measures the performance difference between creating objects using an object literal (i.e., `const d = {}`) versus using a constructor function (i.e., `new c(i)`).

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two main options being compared:

1. **Object Literal**: This approach creates an empty object (`const d = {}`) and then pushes a new object with properties into the array (`a.push({ b: i })`).
2. **Constructor**: This approach uses a constructor function `c(i)` that takes an argument `i`, sets the `b` property on the instance, and returns the instance. The instance is then pushed into the array using `a.push(new c(i))`.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Object Literal**:
	* Pros: Simple and efficient way to create objects.
	* Cons: Can lead to slower performance due to the creation of a new object every iteration, which may result in more garbage collection and overhead.
2. **Constructor**:
	* Pros: Encapsulates the object's properties and behavior, making it easier to manage complex data structures. The constructor function can also perform initialization and setup before creating the instance.
	* Cons: Creates an extra step for object creation, which may introduce additional overhead.

**Library Used**

In both benchmark definitions, there is no explicit library being used. However, JavaScript's built-in `Array.prototype.push()` method is used to add elements to the array `a`. There are no external libraries or dependencies required for these tests.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are a few special features and syntax in these benchmarks:

1. **Template Literals**: The string literals in both benchmark definitions use template literals, which provide a convenient way to include expressions inside strings.
2. **Function Expressions**: Both benchmark definitions use function expressions (`function(i) { ... }` and `const c = function(i) { ... }`) to define the constructor function.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, here are some possibilities:

1. **Using a class syntax**: Instead of using a constructor function, you could create an object literal with a class syntax (e.g., `class D { b = i; }`).
2. **Using the Object.create() method**: This method can be used to create objects with a specific prototype, which might affect performance.
3. **Creating objects with the Object.new() method**: Some older browsers may have supported this method as an alternative to constructor functions.

However, these alternatives are not directly relevant to the "Constructor vs object literal" benchmark on MeasureThat.net.

Related benchmarks:

Constructor vs object literal 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Object literal vs Constructor

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Object literal

Constructor

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):