Benchmark: Evaluate Destructuring vs Assignment2

Tests:

Destructuring
var list = []; const type = i % 2 === 1 ? 'cases' : 'non-case'; const newObj = { test: 'destructoring vs assigment', ...(type === 'cases' && {name}) } list.push(newObj);
Assigment
var list = []; const type = i % 2 === 1 ? 'cases' : 'non-case'; const newObj = { test: 'destructoring vs assigment', name: type === 'cases' ? name: undefined, } list.push(newObj);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Destructuring
Assigment

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 JSON and explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: destructuring and assignment (also known as optional chaining). The test case creates an array, generates a unique object with specific properties, and pushes it to the array using either destructuring or assignment.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Destructuring**: This approach uses the syntax `const newObj = { ... }[Object.assign({}, newObj)]` to clone the object and push it into the array.
2. **Assignment (Optional Chaining)**: This approach uses the syntax `list.push(newObj)`, without using any additional cloning step.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Destructuring**: Pros:
	* It can be more concise and expressive in some cases, especially when working with objects that have many nested properties.
	* However, it may incur a performance penalty due to the creation of an intermediate object.
2. **Assignment (Optional Chaining)**: Pros:
	* It is likely to be faster since it does not create any intermediate objects.
	* However, it can look less concise and might require more typing.

**Library**

There are no specific libraries being used in this benchmark. The code relies on built-in JavaScript features.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark uses optional chaining (also known as optional access) introduced in ECMAScript 2020. This feature allows using the dot notation to access nested properties of an object, while avoiding null pointer exceptions. In this case, `Object.assign({}, newObj)` is used to clone the object, and `[Object.assign({}, newObj)]` is used to access the object's properties.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other alternatives for cloning objects in JavaScript include:

1. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))**: This method creates a deep copy of the object by converting it to a JSON string and then parsing it back into an object.
2. **for...in loop**: This method iterates over the object's properties using a `for` loop, which can be used to create a shallow copy of the object.

However, these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and may not be as efficient or concise as the destructuring approach.

**Benchmark Result**

The benchmark result shows that Chrome 96 browser achieved:

* `Destructuring`: approximately 35729964 executions per second
* `Assignment (Optional Chaining)`: approximately 3825875.5 executions per second

These results suggest that the assignment (optional chaining) approach is likely to be faster, but further optimization or tweaking of the code may be needed to achieve better performance.

Related benchmarks:

Evaluate Destructuring vs Assignment2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Destructuring vs Assigment

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Destructuring

Assigment

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):