ES6 Modules: Should I Export Static Methods as a Class or Individual Functions?

ES6 Modules: Exporting Static Methods vs. Individual Methods

Problem

When using ECMAScript6 modules, developers have the option to export static methods as a class or as individual functions. Is there a preferred approach in terms of performance and readability?

Solution

Exporting:

Instead of creating a class solely for static methods, it is recommended to export a module object containing the methods:

// myMethods.js
export default {
  myMethod1() { ... },
  myMethod2() { ... },
};

Importing:

For importing multiple methods, the "named import" syntax is preferred:

// app.js
import { myMethod1, myMethod2 } from "myMethods";
myMethod1();
myMethod2();

This approach allows for easy readability and code reusability.

Performance Considerations

• Exporting: Minimal impact as modern JS engines optimize static identifiers efficiently.
• Importing: Partial imports (using specific method names) can potentially improve JIT performance due to reduced code size.

Additional Notes

Code Readability:

• Using a separate class for static methods can be considered a code smell.
• Exposing individual methods provides clarity and reduces the potential for confusion.

Module Syntax:

• Namespace imports (import * as ns) are static and may offer performance benefits, but they may not be suitable for all cases.
• Named imports allow for explicit referencing of the module and individual methods, which can aid in readability.

Conclusion:

Exporting multiple methods as individual functions and importing them using named imports is generally the preferred approach in ES6 modules. This provides a balance between performance and readability without the need for complex class structures.

The above is the detailed content of ES6 Modules: Should I Export Static Methods as a Class or Individual Functions?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!