Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Empty object spread vs. null spread
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Empty object spread vs Null spread vs Undefined spread
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Empty object spread
const extend = (options = {}) => ({ data: 1, ...options }) extend()
Null spread
const extend = (options = null) => ({ data: 1, ...options }) extend()
Undefined spread
const extend = (options) => ({ data: 1, ...options }) extend()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Empty object spread
Null spread
Undefined 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):
Let's break down the provided JSON data and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations. **Benchmark Definition:** The benchmark definition is empty, which means that the test cases will be generated automatically by MeasureThat.net based on the individual test cases provided. **Individual Test Cases:** There are three test cases: 1. **Empty object spread:** The `extend` function is defined as `const extend = (options = {}) => ({ data: 1, ...options })`. This means that if no `options` object is passed to the function, an empty object will be used instead. 2. **Null spread:** The `extend` function is defined as `const extend = (options = null) => ({ data: 1, ...options })`. This means that if no `options` object is passed to the function, `null` will be used instead. 3. **Undefined spread:** The `extend` function is defined as `const extend = (options) => ({ data: 1, ...options })`. This means that if no `options` object is passed to the function, there will be an error because `undefined` cannot be spread. **Options Comparison:** The test cases are comparing the performance of three different approaches: * Empty object spread (`{ options: {} }`) * Null spread (`{ options: null }`) * Undefined spread (this should fail and can be ignored for comparison purposes) **Pros and Cons:** * **Empty object spread:** This approach is likely to be fast because it uses a constant object reference. However, if the `options` object is large, this could lead to inefficient memory allocation. * **Null spread:** Using `null` as an option can be faster than using an empty object, but it may also cause unexpected behavior in some cases. * **Undefined spread:** This approach should fail and can be ignored for comparison purposes. **Library and Special JS Feature:** There is no library used in these test cases. However, the use of the spread operator (`...`) is a modern JavaScript feature that allows objects to be expanded into new objects. This syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). **Other Considerations:** * The `extend` function seems to be designed for deep object merging, but it only merges one property (`data`). If the intention is to merge more properties, the implementation might need to be adjusted. * The benchmark results are based on Firefox 107 and a desktop Linux platform. Running the benchmarks on other browsers or platforms may produce different results. **Alternatives:** Other alternatives for deep object merging could include: * Using the `Object.assign()` method with a library like Lodash * Implementing a custom deep object merging algorithm using recursion or iteration * Using a specialized library like Immutable.js
Related benchmarks:
toFixed vs Math.round
toFixed -> Number vs Math.round
toFixed() vs Math.round().toString()
toFixed() vs String(Math.floor()
parseFloat(toFixed) vs Math.round()
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?