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 < 1000; 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:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native copy	1931868.9 Ops/sec
immutable copy	18993320.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. **Immutable**: Using Immutable.js, a library that provides immutable data structures. In this case, it's creating an instance of `Immutable.List` and pushing elements onto it.
2. **Native**: Creating an array using the native JavaScript syntax (`var native = [];`) and then modifying it by calling the `push()` method.

**Options Compared**

The two options are:

* Immutable: Using Immutable.js to create immutable data structures
* Native: Using native JavaScript arrays for mutable data structures

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Immutable (Using Immutable.js)**

Pros:

* Ensures immutability, which can be beneficial in certain scenarios (e.g., concurrency, data integrity)
* Can lead to more predictable behavior and fewer side effects
* Might be more efficient due to the lack of mutations

Cons:

* Performance overhead due to the need for explicit creation and manipulation of immutable structures
* May incur additional memory allocations
* Can be less suitable for performance-critical applications where mutations are unavoidable

**Native (Using native JavaScript arrays)**

Pros:

* Familiarity and ease of use, as it's a standard part of the JavaScript ecosystem
* Performance is generally better, as there's no overhead from creating immutable structures
* Can lead to more natural and intuitive code

Cons:

* Mutable state can lead to unexpected behavior and side effects
* May result in slower performance due to the need for explicit mutations

**Library: Immutable.js**

Immutable.js is a library that provides immutable data structures, such as `Immutable.List`, `Immutable.Map`, and others. Its primary purpose is to help developers create predictable and reliable code by ensuring immutability.

The library offers a range of features, including:

* Immutable data structures
* Pure functions
* Memoization

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

There's no specific special feature or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `Immutable.List` and `push()` implies the use of functional programming principles, which can be beneficial for maintaining predictable and reliable code.

**Alternatives**

Some alternatives to Immutable.js include:

* Lodash: A popular utility library that provides a range of functions for working with arrays, objects, and other data structures.
* Ramda: Another popular functional programming library that provides a range of functions for processing data.
* Vanilla JavaScript: Using native JavaScript arrays and methods without any additional libraries.

Keep in mind that the choice of library or approach ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

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

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):