Benchmark: Immutable vs Native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/immutable/3.8.1/immutable.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var native = [];
for (var i=0; i < 1000000; i++) {
  native.push(i);
}
var imm = Immutable.List(native);

Tests:

native copy
var b = native.slice().push('again');
immutable copy
var b = imm.push('again');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native copy
immutable copy

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 its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark, called "Immutable vs Native," measures the performance difference between creating copies of an array using JavaScript's native `push` method versus Immutable.js library functions.

**Options Being Compared**

There are two main approaches being compared:

1. **Native Copy**: This approach uses the `push` method on a new array created with the `native` keyword, like this: `var b = native.slice().push('again');`. The `slice()` method creates a shallow copy of the original array, and then the `push` method appends an element to the copied array.
2. **Immutable Copy**: This approach uses Immutable.js library functions to create an immutable list and append an element, like this: `var b = imm.push('again');`. In Immutable.js, `push` is a function that returns a new list with the appended element.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Native Copy**:
	+ Pros: Native JavaScript code, potentially faster execution, as it doesn't involve additional library overhead.
	+ Cons: Creates a shallow copy of the original array using `slice()`, which can be inefficient if the original array is large. Also, this approach requires manual memory management (cleaning up the native array).
* **Immutable Copy**:
	+ Pros: Immutable data structure, which can provide thread-safety and predictability benefits in concurrent programming. The library's optimized implementation of `push` may also lead to better performance.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library dependency, potentially slower execution due to the overhead of creating a new immutable list.

**Other Considerations**

* **Immutable.js Library**: The Immutable.js library is designed to provide immutable data structures and functions for functional programming in JavaScript. Its primary purpose is to make it easier to write predictable, thread-safe code by avoiding shared mutable state.
* **Special JS Feature/Syntax**: There are no special JS features or syntax mentioned in the benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for creating immutable arrays could include:

1. Using `Array.prototype.slice()` with `Object.assign()`, like this: `var b = Array.prototype.slice.call(native).push('again');`. This approach also creates a shallow copy of the original array but avoids using Immutable.js.
2. Utilizing libraries like Lodash or Ramda, which provide similar immutable data structures and functions as Immutable.js.
3. Implementing custom immutable array implementations using JavaScript's built-in `Object.freeze()` and other DOM methods.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and maintainability compared to the Native Copy vs Immutable Copy benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Immutable vs Native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native copy vs immutable copy

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native copy

immutable copy

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):