Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
reduce.concat() vs flat(2)
(version: 0)
Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method
Comparing performance of:
reduce + Array.prototype.concat 2lvl vs Array.prototype.flat 2lvl
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
reduce + Array.prototype.concat 2lvl
var params = [[ 1, 2 ], [ "hello", true, 7 ]]; var other = params.reduce((acc, val) => acc.concat(val), []);
Array.prototype.flat 2lvl
var params = [[1, 2, params], [ "hello", true, 7 ]]; var other = params.flat(2);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
reduce + Array.prototype.concat 2lvl
Array.prototype.flat 2lvl
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Purpose** The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for flattening nested arrays: `reduce()` + `Array.prototype.concat()` versus `Array.prototype.flat()` with an optional depth parameter (2 in this case). **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **Traditional approach:** Using the `reduce()` method, which iterates over each element of the array and concatenates it to a accumulator array using `concat()`. This approach is more verbose but allows for greater control over the flattening process. 2. **Modern approach:** Using the `Array.prototype.flat()` method with an optional depth parameter (set to 2 in this case). This approach is more concise and efficient, as it uses an optimized algorithm that can flatten arrays without explicitly iterating over them. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: Traditional approach (`reduce()` + `Array.prototype.concat()`): Pros: * More control over the flattening process * Can be more intuitive for developers familiar with `reduce()` Cons: * More verbose code, which can lead to increased maintenance costs * May incur overhead due to repeated concatenations Modern approach (`Array.prototype.flat()` with optional depth parameter): Pros: * Concise and efficient code * Optimized algorithm that minimizes overhead Cons: * Less control over the flattening process compared to traditional approach * May not be as intuitive for developers unfamiliar with `flat()` **Library and Syntax** The benchmark uses two JavaScript libraries/libraries in this context are used - `Array.prototype.flat()` which is a part of modern JavaScript and is supported by most browsers since ES6. The test users special JS feature/syntax - no. The benchmark code is written in vanilla JavaScript, without any additional libraries or frameworks. **Other Alternatives** If you want to flatten arrays differently, here are some alternatives: 1. **Lodash's `flatten()` function**: A popular utility library that provides a robust and efficient way to flatten arrays. 2. **Array.prototype.flatRecur()` (modern browsers only)**: Similar to the modern approach used in the benchmark, but with a recursive flattening algorithm. Keep in mind that these alternatives may introduce additional dependencies or complexity, depending on your specific use case. In summary, the benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for flattening nested arrays: traditional `reduce()` + `Array.prototype.concat()` versus modern `Array.prototype.flat()` with optional depth parameter. The latter approach offers greater efficiency and conciseness but provides less control over the flattening process.
Related benchmarks:
Array spread operator vs push 2
Array push vs spread when reducing over results
Object set vs new spread when reducing over results
reduce.concat() vs flat() copy
reduce.concat() vs flat() 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?