Benchmark: Javascript spread vs assign

Tests:

spread
const a = ["a", "b", "c"]; const b = [...a];
assign
const a = ["a", "b", "c"]; const b = Object.assign([], a);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spread
assign

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 and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which outlines the test scenario. In this case, there is no detailed description or script preparation code, but we can infer that the benchmark compares two approaches for creating a shallow copy of an array: using the spread operator (`...`) and `Object.assign()`.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Spread Operator (`...`)**: This syntax creates a new array by spreading the elements of the original array into a new array.
2. **Object.assign()**: This method creates a shallow copy of an object (or array) by copying its own enumerable properties to a new object.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Spread Operator (`...`)**:
	+ Pros: concise, readable, and efficient for creating simple copies of arrays.
	+ Cons: may not work as expected with complex data structures or nested objects. It's also limited in its ability to handle custom objects or arrays that don't support spreadable properties.
* **Object.assign()**:
	+ Pros: widely supported, can handle complex data structures, and is more flexible than the spread operator.
	+ Cons: less concise and may require more code for simple cases. It's also slower due to its object-oriented nature.

**Library**

In this benchmark, there is no explicitly mentioned library, but `Object.assign()` relies on the built-in JavaScript Object API. However, if we're considering external libraries that might be used in real-world scenarios, some notable ones are:

* Lodash: provides a `cloneDeep` method for creating deep copies of objects.
* Underscore.js: offers a `$copy` function for creating shallow or deep copies of arrays.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the spread operator (`...`) was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and has since become a standard part of modern JavaScript.

**Other alternatives**

If we were to consider alternative approaches for creating shallow copies of arrays, some options might include:

* Using `Array.prototype.slice()`: creates a shallow copy of an array by returning a new array object with references to the original elements.
* Utilizing libraries like Ramda or Immutable.js: provide higher-order functions for creating immutable data structures, including shallow copies.

In conclusion, this benchmark provides a simple yet informative test case that highlights the differences between using the spread operator (`...`) and `Object.assign()` for creating shallow copies of arrays in JavaScript.

Related benchmarks:

Javascript spread vs assign (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: spread vs assign

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

spread

assign

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):