Develop Reference

Create quick reference variables for speed access to core prototypes

I was analyzing some third party javascript libraries and came across an approach wherein people create quick reference to core prototypes. Is there any performance benefit of doing this ? Can anyone explain this with an example ?
var ArrayProto = Array.prototype, ObjProto = Object.prototype, FuncProto = Function.prototype;
// Create quick reference variables for speed access to core prototypes.
var
push = ArrayProto.push,
slice = ArrayProto.slice,
concat = ArrayProto.concat,
toString = ObjProto.toString,
hasOwnProperty = ObjProto.hasOwnProperty;

Is there any performance benefit of doing this ?
A very small one, yes, for two/three reasons:
When you reference an identifier (for instance, Array or ArrayProto or push), the JavaScript engine first looks in the current lexical environment and then, if it's not found, the next one out, and the next one out, etc., until it reaches the global lexical environment. I assume the code you're referring to is within a scoping function. So because those are locals within the scoping function, they're found right away, rather than the JavaScript engine having to traverse up to the global environment to find them.
Array.prototype not only requires looking up Array, but also the prototype property on Array. It doesn't take any appreciable time, but it doesn't take zero time, either.
(Sort of #2 repeated) Looking up Array.prototype.push also requires looking up push on Array.prototype. Again, not appreciable, but again, not zero, either.
So the combination of those can make a very small performance difference, using a local push rather than Array.prototype.push (and so on).
More likely, though, the author did it because it made for less typing, rather than as a performance enhancement. :-)
Re an example: It's frequently useful to use a function like Array.prototype.slice on an object that isn't an array. In fact, until ES2015's Array.from, it was one of the canonical ways to turn an array-like object (such as the collection returned from querySelectorAll) into a true array (more in my answer here).
So given the setup in your question, if I have an array-like list:
var list = document.querySelectorAll("some-selector-here");
instead of doing this to get that list as an array:
var trueArray = Array.prototype.slice.call(list);
I can do this instead:
var trueArray = slice.call(list);
Since slice is likely to be in the current lexical environment or the one just outside it, it's found fairly quickly (point #1 above), and then we're done, rather than having to look up prototype on Array (point #2 above) and then look up slice on Array.prototype (point #3 above).
So it's very slightly faster; but again, primarily, it's shorter and less error-prone to type.

If you're going to do a lot of Array.prototype in your function, you might want to grab a copy of the function reference into a variable for reuse. This would provide a small performance benefit.

How does Bluebird's util.toFastProperties function make an object's properties "fast"?

In Bluebird's util.js file, it has the following function:
function toFastProperties(obj) {
/*jshint -W027*/
function f() {}
f.prototype = obj;
ASSERT("%HasFastProperties", true, obj);
return f;
eval(obj);
}
For some reason, there's a statement after the return function, which I'm not sure why it's there.
As well, it seems that it is deliberate, as the author had silenced the JSHint warning about this:
Unreachable 'eval' after 'return'. (W027)
What exactly does this function do? Does util.toFastProperties really make an object's properties "faster"?
I've searched through Bluebird's GitHub repository for any comments in the source code or an explanation in their list of issues, but I couldn't find any.

2017 update: First, for readers coming today - here is a version that works with Node 7 (4+):
function enforceFastProperties(o) {
function Sub() {}
Sub.prototype = o;
var receiver = new Sub(); // create an instance
function ic() { return typeof receiver.foo; } // perform access
ic();
ic();
return o;
eval("o" + o); // ensure no dead code elimination
}
Sans one or two small optimizations - all the below is still valid.
Let's first discuss what it does and why that's faster and then why it works.
What it does
The V8 engine uses two object representations:
Dictionary mode - in which object are stored as key - value maps as a hash map.
Fast mode - in which objects are stored like structs, in which there is no computation involved in property access.
Here is a simple demo that demonstrates the speed difference. Here we use the delete statement to force the objects into slow dictionary mode.
The engine tries to use fast mode whenever possible and generally whenever a lot of property access is performed - however sometimes it gets thrown into dictionary mode. Being in dictionary mode has a big performance penalty so generally it is desirable to put objects in fast mode.
This hack is intended to force the object into fast mode from dictionary mode.
Bluebird's Petka himself talks about it here.
These slides (wayback machine) by Vyacheslav Egorov also mentions it.
The question "*https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23455678/pros-and-cons-of-dictionary-mode*" and its accepted answer are also related.
This slightly outdated article is still a fairly good read that can give you a good idea on how objects are stored in v8.
Why it's faster
In JavaScript prototypes typically store functions shared among many instances and rarely change a lot dynamically. For this reason it is very desirable to have them in fast mode to avoid the extra penalty every time a function is called.
For this - v8 will gladly put objects that are the .prototype property of functions in fast mode since they will be shared by every object created by invoking that function as a constructor. This is generally a clever and desirable optimization.
How it works
Let's first go through the code and figure what each line does:
function toFastProperties(obj) {
/*jshint -W027*/ // suppress the "unreachable code" error
function f() {} // declare a new function
f.prototype = obj; // assign obj as its prototype to trigger the optimization
// assert the optimization passes to prevent the code from breaking in the
// future in case this optimization breaks:
ASSERT("%HasFastProperties", true, obj); // requires the "native syntax" flag
return f; // return it
eval(obj); // prevent the function from being optimized through dead code
// elimination or further optimizations. This code is never
// reached but even using eval in unreachable code causes v8
// to not optimize functions.
}
We don't have to find the code ourselves to assert that v8 does this optimization, we can instead read the v8 unit tests:
// Adding this many properties makes it slow.
assertFalse(%HasFastProperties(proto));
DoProtoMagic(proto, set__proto__);
// Making it a prototype makes it fast again.
assertTrue(%HasFastProperties(proto));
Reading and running this test shows us that this optimization indeed works in v8. However - it would be nice to see how.
If we check objects.cc we can find the following function (L9925):
void JSObject::OptimizeAsPrototype(Handle<JSObject> object) {
if (object->IsGlobalObject()) return;
// Make sure prototypes are fast objects and their maps have the bit set
// so they remain fast.
if (!object->HasFastProperties()) {
MigrateSlowToFast(object, 0);
}
}
Now, JSObject::MigrateSlowToFast just explicitly takes the Dictionary and converts it into a fast V8 object. It's a worthwhile read and an interesting insight into v8 object internals - but it's not the subject here. I still warmly recommend that you read it here as it's a good way to learn about v8 objects.
If we check out SetPrototype in objects.cc, we can see that it is called in line 12231:
if (value->IsJSObject()) {
JSObject::OptimizeAsPrototype(Handle<JSObject>::cast(value));
}
Which in turn is called by FuntionSetPrototype which is what we get with .prototype =.
Doing __proto__ = or .setPrototypeOf would have also worked but these are ES6 functions and Bluebird runs on all browsers since Netscape 7 so that's out of the question to simplify code here. For example, if we check .setPrototypeOf we can see:
// ES6 section 19.1.2.19.
function ObjectSetPrototypeOf(obj, proto) {
CHECK_OBJECT_COERCIBLE(obj, "Object.setPrototypeOf");
if (proto !== null && !IS_SPEC_OBJECT(proto)) {
throw MakeTypeError("proto_object_or_null", [proto]);
}
if (IS_SPEC_OBJECT(obj)) {
%SetPrototype(obj, proto); // MAKE IT FAST
}
return obj;
}
Which directly is on Object:
InstallFunctions($Object, DONT_ENUM, $Array(
...
"setPrototypeOf", ObjectSetPrototypeOf,
...
));
So - we have walked the path from the code Petka wrote to the bare metal. This was nice.
Disclaimer:
Remember this is all implementation detail. People like Petka are optimization freaks. Always remember that premature optimization is the root of all evil 97% of the time. Bluebird does something very basic very often so it gains a lot from these performance hacks - being as fast as callbacks isn't easy. You rarely have to do something like this in code that doesn't power a library.

V8 developer here. The accepted answer is a great explanation, I just wanted to highlight one thing: the so-called "fast" and "slow" property modes are unfortunate misnomers, they each have their pros and cons. Here is a (slightly simplified) overview of the performance of various operations:
struct-like properties
dictionary properties
adding a property to an object
--
+
deleting a property
---
+
reading/writing a property, first time
-
+
reading/writing, cached, monomorphic
+++
+
reading/writing, cached, few shapes
++
+
reading/writing, cached, many shapes
--
+
colloquial name
"fast"
"slow"
So as you can see, dictionary properties are actually faster for most of the lines in this table, because they don't care what you do, they just handle everything with solid (though not record-breaking) performance. Struct-like properties are blazing fast for one particular situation (reading/writing the values of existing properties, where every individual place in the code only sees very few distinct object shapes), but the price they pay for that is that all other operations, in particular those that add or remove properties, become much slower.
It just so happens that the special case where struct-like properties have their big advantage (+++) is particularly frequent and really important for many apps' performance, which is why they acquired the "fast" moniker. But it's important to realize that when you delete properties and V8 switches the affected objects to dictionary mode, then it isn't being dumb or trying to be annoying: rather it attempts to give you the best possible performance for what you're doing. We have landed patches in the past that have achieved significant performance improvements by making more objects go to dictionary ("slow") mode sooner when appropriate.
Now, it can happen that your objects would generally benefit from struct-like properties, but something your code does causes V8 to transition them to dictionary properties, and you'd like to undo that; Bluebird had such a case. Still, the name toFastProperties is a bit misleading in its simplicity; a more accurate (though unwieldy) name would be spendTimeOptimizingThisObjectAssumingItsPropertiesWontChange, which would indicate that the operation itself is costly, and it only makes sense in certain limited cases. If someone took away the conclusion "oh, this is great, so I can happily delete properties now, and just call toFastProperties afterwards every time", then that would be a major misunderstanding and cause pretty bad performance degradation.
If you stick with a few simple rules of thumb, you'll never have a reason to even try to force any internal object representation changes:
Use constructors, and initialize all properties in the constructor. (This helps not only your engine, but also understandability and maintainability of your code. Consider that TypeScript doesn't quite force this but strongly encourages it, because it helps engineering productivity.)
Use classes or prototypes to install methods, don't just slap them onto each object instance. (Again, this is a common best practice for many reasons, one of them being that it's faster.)
Avoid delete. When properties come and go, prefer using a Map over the ES5-era "object-as-map" pattern. When an object can toggle into and out of a certain state, prefer boolean (or equivalent) properties (e.g. o.has_state = true; o.has_state = false;) over adding and deleting an indicator property.
When it comes to performance, measure, measure, measure. Before you start sinking time into performance improvements, profile your app to see where the hotspots are. When you implement a change that you hope will make things faster, verify with your real app (or something extremely close to it; not just a 10-line microbenchmark!) that it actually helps.
Lastly, if your team lead tells you "I've heard that there are 'fast' and 'slow' properties, please make sure that all of ours are 'fast'", then point them at this post :-)

Reality from 2021 (NodeJS version 12+).
Seems like a huge optimization is done, objects with deleted fields and sparse arrays don't become slow. Or I'm missing smth?
// run in Node with enabled flag
// node --allow-natives-syntax script.js
function Point(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
var obj1 = new Point(1, 2);
var obj2 = new Point(3, 4);
delete obj2.y;
var arr = [1,2,3]
arr[100] = 100
console.log('obj1 has fast properties:', %HasFastProperties(obj1));
console.log('obj2 has fast properties:', %HasFastProperties(obj2));
console.log('arr has fast properties:', %HasFastProperties(arr));
both show true
obj1 has fast properties: true
obj2 has fast properties: true
arr has fast properties: true

// run in Node with enabled flag
// node --allow-natives-syntax script.js
function Point(x, y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
var obj2 = new Point(3, 4);
console.log('obj has fast properties:', %HasFastProperties(obj2)) // true
delete obj2.y;
console.log('obj2 has fast properties:', %HasFastProperties(obj2)); //true
var obj = {x : 1, y : 2};
console.log('obj has fast properties:', %HasFastProperties(obj)) //true
delete obj.x;
console.log('obj has fast properties:', %HasFastProperties(obj)); //fasle
Function and object look different

Javascript: why Object.keys(someobject), rather than someobject.keys?

I frequently get an array of an objects keys using:
Object.keys(someobject)
I'm comfortable doing this. I understand that Object is the Object constructor function, and keys() is a method of it, and that keys() will return a list of keys on whatever object is given as the first parameter. My question is not how to get the keys of an object - please do not reply with non-answers explaining this.
My question is, why isn't there a more predictable keys() or getKeys() method, or keys instance variable available on Object.prototype, so I can have:
someobject.keys()
or as an instance variable:
someobject.keys
And return the array of keys?
Again, my intention is to understand the design of Javascript, and what purpose the somewhat unintuitive mechanism of fetching keys serves. I don't need help getting keys.

I suppose they don't want too many properties on Object.prototype since your own properties could shadow them.
The more they include, the greater the chance for conflict.
It would be very clumsy to get the keys for this object if keys was on the prototype...
var myObj: {
keys: ["j498fhfhdl89", "1084jnmzbhgi84", "jf03jbbop021gd"]
};
var keys = Object.prototype.keys.call(myObj);
An example of how introducing potentially shadowed properties can break code.
There seems to be some confusion as to why it's a big deal to add new properties to Object.prototype.
It's not at all difficult to conceive of a bit of code in existence that looks like this...
if (someObject.keys) {
someObject.keys.push("new value")
else
someObject.keys = ["initial value"]
Clearly this code would break if you add a keys function to Object.prototype. The fact that someObject.keys would now be a shadowing property breaks the code that is written to assume that it is not a shadowing property.
Hindsight is 20/20
If you're wondering why keys wasn't part of the original language, so that people would at least be accustomed to coding around it... well I guess they didn't find it necessary, or simply didn't think of it.
There are many possible methods and syntax features that aren't included in the language. That's why we have revisions to the specification, in order to add new features. For example, Array.prototype.forEach is a late addition. But they could add it to Array.prototype, because it doesn't break proper uses of Array.
It's not a realistic expectation that a language should include every possible feature in its 1.0 release.
Since Object.keys does nothing more than return an Array of an Object's enumerable own properties, it's a non-essential addition, that could be achieved with existing language features. It should be no surprise that it wasn't present earlier.
Conclusion
Adding keys to Object.prototype most certainly would break legacy code.
In a tremendously popular language like JavaScript, backward compatibility is most certainly going to be an important consideration. Adding new properties to Object.prototype at this point could prove to be disastrous.

I guess an answer to your question is "Because the committee decided so", but I can already hear you ask "why?" before the end of this sentence.
I read about this recently but I can't find the source right now. What it boiled down to was that in many cases you had to use Object.prototype.keys.call(myobject) anyway, because the likelihood of myobject.keys already being used in the object for something else.
I think you will find this archived mail thread interesting, where for example Brendan Eich discuss some aspects of the new methods in ECMAScript 5.
Update:
While digging in the mail-archive I found this:
Topic: Should Object.keys be repositioned as Object.prototype.keys
Discussion: Allen argued that this isn't really a meta layer operation
as it is intended for use in application layer code as an alternative
to for..in for getting a list of enumerable property names. As a
application layer method it belongs on Object.prototype rather than on
the Object constructor. There was general agreement in principle, but
it was pragmatically argued by Doug and Mark that it is too likely
that a user defined object would define its own property named "keys"
which would shadow Object.prototype.keys making it inaccessible for
use on such objects.
Action: Leave it as Object.keys.

Feel free to make your own, but the more properties you add to the Object prototype, the higher chance you'll collide. These collisions will most likely break any third party javascript library, and any code that relies on a for...in loop.
Object.prototype.keys = function () {
return Object.keys(this);
};
for (var key in {}) {
// now i'm getting 'keys' in here, wtf?
}
var something = {
keys: 'foo'
};
something.keys(); // error

Object.prototype is Verboten?

RECAP:
Ok, it's been a while since I asked this question. As usual, I went and augmented the Object.prototype anyway, in spite of all the valid arguments against it given both here and elsewhere on the web. I guess I'm just that kind of stubborn jerk.
I've tried to come up with a conclusive way of preventing the new method from mucking up any expected behaviour, which proved to be a very tough, but informative thing to do. I've learned a great many things about JavaScript. Not in the least that I won't be trying anything as brash as messing with the native prototypes, (except for String.prototype.trim for IE < 9).
In this particular case, I don't use any libs, so conflicts were not my main concern. But having dug a little deeper into possible mishaps when playing around with native prototypes, I'm not likely to try this code in combination with any lib.
By looking into this prototype approach, I've come to a better understanding of the model itself. I was treating prototypes as some form of flexible traditional abstract class, making me cling on to traditional OOP thinking. This viewpoint doesn't really do the prototype model justice. Douglas Crockford wrote about this pitfall, sadly the pink background kept me from reading the full article.
I've decided to update this question in the off chance people who read this are tempted to see for themselves. All I can say to that is: by all means, do. I hope you learn a couple of neat things, as I did, before deciding to abandon this rather silly idea. A simple function might work just as well, or better even, especially in this case. After all, the real beauty of it is, that by adding just 3 lines of code, you can use that very same function to augment specific objects' prototypes all the same.
I know I'm about to ask a question that has been around for quite a while, but: Why is Object.prototype considered to be off limits? It's there, and it can be augmented all the same, like any other prototype. Why, then, shouldn't you take advantage of this. To my mind, as long as you know what you're doing, there's no reason to steer clear of the Object prototype. Take this method for example:
if (!Object.prototype.getProperties)
{
Object.prototype.getProperties = function(f)
{
"use strict";
var i,ret;
f = f || false;
ret = [];
for (i in this)
{
if (this.hasOwnProperty(i))
{
if (f === false && typeof this[i] === 'function')
{
continue;
}
ret.push(i);
}
}
return ret;
};
}
Basically, it's the same old for...in loop you would either keep safe in a function, or write over and over again. I know it will be added to all objects, and since nearly every inheritance chain in JavaScript can be traced back to the Object.prototype, but in my script, I consider it the lesser of two evils.
Perhaps, someone could do a better job at telling me where I'm wrong than this chap, among others. Whilst looking for reasons people gave NOT to touch the Object's prototype, one thing kept cropping up: it breaks the for..in loop-thingy, but then again: many frameworks do, too, not to mention your own inheritance chains. It is therefore bad practice not to include a .hasOwnProperty check when looping through an object's properties, to my mind.
I also found this rather interesting. Again: one comment is quite unequivocal: extending native prototypes is bad practice, but if the V8 people do it, who am I to say they're wrong? I know, that argument doesn't quite stack up.
The point is: I can't really see a problem with the above code. I like it, use it a lot and so far, it hasn't let me down once. I'm even thinking of attaching a couple more functions to the Object prototype. Unless somebody can tell me why I shouldn't, that is.

The fact is, it's fine as long as you know what you're doing and what the costs are. But it's a big "if". Some examples of the costs:
You'll need to do extensive testing with any library you choose to use with an environment that augments Object.prototype, because the overwhelming convention is that a blank object will have no enumerable properties. By adding an enumerable property to Object.prototype, you're making that convention false. E.g., this is quite common:
var obj = {"a": 1, "b": 2};
var name;
for (name in obj) {
console.log(name);
}
...with the overwhelming convention being that only "a" and "b" will show up, not "getProperties".
Anyone working on the code will have to be schooled in the fact that that convention (above) is not being followed.
You can mitigate the above by using Object.defineProperty (and similar) if supported, but beware that even in 2014, browsers like IE8 that don't support it properly remain in significant use (though we can hope that will change quickly now that XP is officially EOL'd). That's because using Object.defineProperty, you can add non-enumerable properties (ones that don't show up in for-in loops) and so you'll have a lot less trouble (at that point, you're primarily worried about name conflicts) — but it only works on systems that correctly implement Object.defineProperty (and a correct implementation cannot be "shimmed").
In your example, I wouldn't add getProperties to Object.prototype; I'd add it to Object and accept the object as an argument, like ES5 does for getPrototypeOf and similar.
Be aware that the Prototype library gets a lot of flak for extending Array.prototype because of how that affects for..in loops. And that's just Arrays (which you shouldn't use for..in on anyway (unless you're using the hasOwnProperty guard and quite probably String(Number(name)) === name as well).
...if the V8 people do it, who am I to say they're wrong?
On V8, you can rely on Object.defineProperty, because V8 is an entirely ES5-compliant engine.
Note that even when the properties are non-enumerable, there are issues. Years ago, Prototype (indirectly) defined a filter function on Array.prototype. And it does what you'd expect: Calls an iterator function and creates a new array based on elements the function chooses. Then ECMAScript5 came along and defined Array.prototype.filter to do much the same thing. But there's the rub: Much the same thing. In particular, the signature of the iterator functions that get called is different (ECMAScript5 includes an argument that Prototype didn't). It could have been much worse than that (and I suspect — but cannot prove — that TC39 were aware of Prototype and intentionally avoided too much conflict with it).
So: If you're going to do it, be aware of the risks and costs. The ugly, edge-case bugs you can run into as a result of trying to use off-the-shelf libraries could really cost you time...

If frameworks and libraries generally did what you are proposing, it would very soon happen that two different frameworks would define two different functionalities as the same method of Object (or Array, Number... or any of the existing object prototypes). It is therefore better to add such new functionality into its own namespace.
For example... imagine, you would have a library that would serialize objects to json and a library that would serialize them to XML and both would define their functionality as
Object.prototype.serialize = function() { ... }
and you would only be able to use the one that was defined later. So it is better if they don't do this, but instead
JSONSerializingLibrary.seralize = function(obj) { ... }
XMLSerializingLibrary.seralize = function(obj) { ... }
It could also happen that a new functionality is defined in a new ECMAscript standard, or added by a browser vendor. So imagine that your browsers would also add a serialize function. That would again cause conflict with libraries that defined the same function. Even if the libraries' functionality was the same as that which is built in to the browser, the interpreted script functions would override the native function which would, in fact, be faster.

See http://www.websanova.com/tutorials/javascript/extending-javascript-the-right-way
Which addresses some, but not all, the objections raised. The objection about different libraries creating clashing methods can be alleviated by raising an exception if a domain specific method is already present in Object.prototype. That will at least provide an alert when this undesirable event happens.
Inspired by this post I developed the following which is also available in the comments of the cited page.
!Object.implement && Object.defineProperty (Object.prototype, 'implement', {
// based on http://www.websanova.com/tutorials/javascript/extending-javascript-the-right-way
value: function (mthd, fnc, cfg) { // adds fnc to prototype under name mthd
if (typeof mthd === 'function') { // find mthd from function source
cfg = fnc, fnc = mthd;
(mthd = (fnc.toString ().match (/^function\s+([a-z$_][\w$]+)/i) || [0, ''])[1]);
}
mthd && !this.prototype[mthd] &&
Object.defineProperty (this.prototype, mthd, {configurable: !!cfg, value: fnc, enumerable: false});
}
});
Object.implement (function forEach (fnc) {
for (var key in this)
this.hasOwnProperty (key) && fnc (this[key], key, this);
});
I have used this primarily to add standard defined function on implementation that do not support them.

Dynamic vs Inline RegExp performance in JavaScript

I stumbled upon that performance test, saying that RegExps in JavaScript are not necessarily slow: http://jsperf.com/regexp-indexof-perf
There's one thing i didn't get though: two cases involve something that i believed to be exactly the same:
RegExp('(?:^| )foo(?: |$)').test(node.className);
And
/(?:^| )foo(?: |$)/.test(node.className);
In my mind, those two lines were exactly the same, the second one being some kind of shorthand to create a RegExp object. Still, it's twice faster than the first.
Those cases are called "dynamic regexp" and "inline regexp".
Could someone help me understand the difference (and the performance gap) between these two?

Nowadays, answers given here are not entirely complete/correct.
Starting from ES5, the literal syntax behavior is the same as RegExp() syntax regarding object creation: both of them creates a new RegExp object every time code path hits an expression in which they are taking part.
Therefore, the only difference between them now is how often that regexp is compiled:
With literal syntax - one time during initial code parsing and
compiling
With RegExp() syntax - every time new object gets created
See, for instance, Stoyan Stefanov's JavaScript Patterns book:
Another distinction between the regular expression literal and the
constructor is that the literal creates an object only once during
parse time. If you create the same regular expression in a loop, the
previously created object will be returned with all its properties
(such as lastIndex) already set from the first time. Consider the
following example as an illustration of how the same object is
returned twice.
function getRE() {
var re = /[a-z]/;
re.foo = "bar";
return re;
}
var reg = getRE(),
re2 = getRE();
console.log(reg === re2); // true
reg.foo = "baz";
console.log(re2.foo); // "baz"
This behavior has changed in ES5 and the literal also creates new objects. The behavior has also been corrected in many browser
environments, so it’s not to be relied on.
If you run this sample in all modern browsers or NodeJS, you get the following instead:
false
bar
Meaning that every time you're calling the getRE() function, a new RegExp object is created even with literal syntax approach.
The above not only explains why you shouldn't use the RegExp() for immutable regexps (it's very well known performance issue today), but also explains:
(I am more surprised that inlineRegExp and storedRegExp have different
results.)
The storedRegExp is about 5 - 20% percent faster across browsers than inlineRegExp because there is no overhead of creating (and garbage collecting) a new RegExp object every time.
Conclusion:
Always create your immutable regexps with literal syntax and cache it if it's to be re-used. In other words, don't rely on that difference in behavior in envs below ES5, and continue caching appropriately in envs above.
Why literal syntax? It has some advantages comparing to constructor syntax:
It is shorter and doesn’t force you to think in terms of class-like
constructors.
When using the RegExp() constructor, you also need to escape quotes and double-escape backslashes. It makes regular expressions
that are hard to read and understand by their nature even more harder.
(Free citation from the same Stoyan Stefanov's JavaScript Patterns book).
Hence, it's always a good idea to stick with the literal syntax, unless your regexp isn't known at the compile time.

The difference in performance is not related to the syntax that is used is partly related to the syntax that is used: in /pattern/ and RegExp(/pattern/) (where you did not test the latter) the regular expression is only compiled once, but for RegExp('pattern') the expression is compiled on each usage. See Alexander's answer, which should be the accepted answer today.
Apart from the above, in your tests for inlineRegExp and storedRegExp you're looking at code that is initialized once when the source code text is parsed, while for dynamicRegExp the regular expression is created for each invocation of the method. Note that the actual tests run things like r = dynamicRegExp(element) many times, while the preparation code is only run once.
The following gives you about the same results, according to another jsPerf:
var reContains = /(?:^| )foo(?: |$)/;
...and
var reContains = RegExp('(?:^| )foo(?: |$)');
...when both are used with
function storedRegExp(node) {
return reContains.test(node.className);
}
Sure, the source code of RegExp('(?:^| )foo(?: |$)') might first be parsed into a String, and then into a RegExp, but I doubt that by itself will be twice as slow. However, the following will create a new RegExp(..) again and again for each method call:
function dynamicRegExp(node) {
return RegExp('(?:^| )foo(?: |$)').test(node.className);
}
If in the original test you'd only call each method once, then the inline version would not be a whopping 2 times faster.
(I am more surprised that inlineRegExp and storedRegExp have different results. This is explained in Alexander's answer too.)

in the second case, the regular expression object is created during the parsing of the language, and in the first case, the RegExp class constructor has to parse an arbitrary string.