Benchmark: concat vs spread123213

Tests:

Array.prototype.concat
var params = [ "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 ].concat(params);
spread
var params = [ "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, ...params ];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.concat
spread

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.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark compares two approaches to concatenate an array with another array: using `Array.prototype.concat()` and using the spread operator (`...`).

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is the script that defines the test case. In this case, there are only two test cases:

1. **Array.prototype.concat**: This test case uses the `concat()` method to concatenate an array with another array.
```javascript
var params = [ "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7 ];
var other = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 ].concat(params);
```
This test case is likely intended to measure the performance of the `concat()` method.

2. **Spread Operator**: This test case uses the spread operator (`...`) to concatenate an array with another array.
```javascript
var params = [ "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7, "hello", true, 7 ];
var other = [ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, ...params ];
```
This test case is likely intended to measure the performance of the spread operator.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

In this benchmark, no libraries are used. However, the `...` spread operator is a special JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

The `concat()` method is a built-in method of the Array prototype, so it does not require any additional library or syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Array.prototype.concat()**

Pros:

* Well-established and widely supported
* Easy to read and understand

Cons:

* Can be slower than the spread operator due to the overhead of calling a method
* May have more CPU cycles spent on function calls and parameter setup

**Spread Operator (`...`)**

Pros:

* Generally faster than `concat()` due to the simplicity of the syntax
* More concise and expressive code

Cons:

* Less readable for non-ES6 compliant browsers or environments
* May require additional configuration or polyfills in older browsers

**Other Alternatives**

In addition to the two approaches mentioned, other alternatives for concatenating arrays include:

* Using `push()` with multiple arguments: `arr.push(...params)`
* Using a loop and assigning each element of the array: `var result = []; for (var i = 0; i < params.length; i++) { result.push(params[i]); }`
* Using a library or utility function, such as Lodash's `concat` function.

However, these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the two approaches mentioned above.

Related benchmarks:

concat vs spread123213 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.concat vs spread

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

spread

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):