Benchmark: Which is faster Array.prototype.slice vs spread operator

Tests:

Array.prototype.slice
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = params.slice();
spread operator
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = [...params];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.slice
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 benchmark and analyze what's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The primary goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two methods: `Array.prototype.slice()` and the new ES6 spread operator (`...`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **`Array.prototype.slice()`**: This method creates a shallow copy of an array, copying elements from one array to another.
2. **The spread operator (`...`)**: This operator creates a new array by spreading elements from an existing array.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`Array.prototype.slice()`**:
	+ Pros:
		- Well-established and widely supported method.
		- Can be used in older browsers that don't support the spread operator.
	+ Cons:
		- Creates a new object each time it's called, which can lead to performance issues with large arrays.
		- May not be as efficient as the spread operator for very large datasets.
* **The spread operator (`...`)**:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and readable than `Array.prototype.slice()`.
		- Creates a new array in a more memory-efficient way than `slice()`.
		- Supports modern browsers that don't have performance issues with it.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be supported in older browsers.
		- Can be slower due to the overhead of creating a new array.

**Library and Special JavaScript Features**

There is no explicit library mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, we can infer that the spread operator (`...`) was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) as part of the language standard. The use of `Array.prototype.slice()` suggests that this benchmark is testing compatibility with older JavaScript versions.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two methods, consider the following factors:

* **Readability and maintainability**: If code readability is crucial for your project, the spread operator might be a better choice due to its concise syntax.
* **Performance-critical applications**: In cases where performance is critical, such as in games or other high-performance applications, `Array.prototype.slice()` might still be preferred due to its established performance profile.
* **Browser support**: If you need to support older browsers, using `Array.prototype.slice()` ensures compatibility.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches for creating copies of arrays include:

1. **`Array.from()`**: This method creates a new array from an iterable or an existing array. It's more modern than `slice()`, but might not be as efficient.
2. **`concat()`**: This method creates a new array by concatenating one or more arrays. While it can work, it's generally slower and less memory-efficient than the spread operator.

In summary, this benchmark is testing the performance of two methods for creating copies of arrays: `Array.prototype.slice()` and the new ES6 spread operator (`...`). The choice between these options depends on your project's specific needs, such as readability, performance, and browser support.

Related benchmarks:

Which is faster Array.prototype.slice vs spread operator (version: 0)

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

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

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.slice

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):