Benchmark: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator bigger arrays

Tests:

Array.prototype.concat
var params = new Array(5000).fill('params'); var other = new Array(5000).fill('other'); var result = other.concat(params);
spread operator
var params = new Array(5000).fill('params'); var other = new Array(5000).fill('other'); var result = [ ...other, ...params ]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.concat
spread operator

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that describes the test case. In this case, there are two test cases:

* "Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator bigger arrays"
* The description explains that this test compares the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional `concat()` method.
* There are no script or HTML preparation codes provided.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Array.prototype.concat**
	* This test case creates two arrays, `params` and `other`, each filled with 5000 elements of a string 'params' and 'other', respectively.
	* The test then calls the `concat()` method on the `other` array, passing in the `params` array as an argument.
2. **Spread Operator**
	* This test case creates two arrays, `params` and `other`, each filled with 5000 elements of a string 'params' and 'other', respectively.
	* The test then uses the spread operator (`[ ...other, ...params ]`) to concatenate the two arrays.

**Comparison**

The comparison is between the traditional `concat()` method and the new ES6 spread operator for concatenating larger arrays.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Traditional concat() method**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported across browsers.
		+ Can be more efficient for large arrays due to native optimization.
	* Cons:
		+ Does not create a new array, but instead modifies the original array, which can lead to unexpected behavior in some cases.
		+ Not designed specifically for concatenating arrays.
2. **ES6 Spread Operator**
	* Pros:
		+ Creates a new array, avoiding modification of the original array.
		+ Designed specifically for concatenating arrays and other iterable objects.
	* Cons:
		+ Only supported in modern browsers (Chrome 88) and some older versions of Internet Explorer.

**Library**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's likely that the `concat()` method relies on internal array manipulation functions provided by JavaScript engines.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The test case uses the spread operator (`[ ...other, ...params ]`), which is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This syntax allows for more concise and expressive array concatenation.

**Other Alternatives**

If the spread operator was not available, alternative approaches could include:

* Using `Array.prototype.push()`: `var result = other; result.push(...params);`
* Using a custom function or library for array concatenation
* Using a library like Lodash, which provides a `concat()` function with various optimization options

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same performance benefits as the spread operator or traditional `concat()` method.

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator bigger arrays (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

spread operator

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):