Benchmark: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator (without jQuery) with more data

Tests:

Array.prototype.concat
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = [ 1, 2 ].concat(params,params,params,params,params,params,params,params,params,params,params,params,params,params,params);
spread operator
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ] var other = [ 1, 2, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params ]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.concat
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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to concatenate arrays in JavaScript:

1. The traditional `Array.prototype.concat()` method
2. The new ES6 spread operator (`...`)

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Array.prototype.concat**: This test case creates an array `params` with a small number of elements and then concatenates it multiple times using the `concat()` method.
	* Example code:
```javascript
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ];
var other = [ 1, 2 ].concat(params, params, params, params, params, params, params, params, params, params, params, params, params, params, params, params, params, params );
```
2. **Spread Operator**: This test case creates an array `params` with a small number of elements and then concatenates it multiple times using the spread operator (`...`).
	* Example code:
```javascript
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ];
var other = [ 1, 2, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params, ...params ];
```
**Options Compared**

The two approaches being compared are:

* Traditional `Array.prototype.concat()` method
* New ES6 spread operator (`...`)

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Traditional `Array.prototype.concat()` method**:
	+ Pros: Wide browser support, well-established implementation.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to the need for multiple array concatenations.
* **New ES6 spread operator (`...`)**:
	+ Pros: More concise, potentially faster than traditional concatenation.
	+ Cons: May not be supported in older browsers.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

There is no specific library being used in these test cases. However, the use of the spread operator is a feature introduced in ES6 (2015).

**Other Considerations**

When evaluating the performance of these two approaches, consider factors such as:

* Browser version support
* Array size and complexity
* Number of concatenations required

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some options:

* Using `Array.prototype.push()` to append elements one by one (instead of concatenating multiple times)
* Using a library like Lodash or Ramda for array manipulation
* Optimizing the implementation using techniques like memoization or caching

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide a significant performance improvement over the traditional `concat()` method, but they can offer more concise and expressive code.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark and its underlying concepts!

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator (without jQuery) with more data (version: 0)

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

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

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

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):