Benchmark: Array concat vs spread vs push spread, loop, apply 2

Script Preparation code:

var subarrs = [
 [ "hello", true, 7 ],
 [ "yes", "no", "maybe", false, 27 ],
 [ 16, "I", "wonder", "what", "will", "be", "fastest"]
];

var other = [
  [ "hello", true, 7 ],
 [ "yes", "no", "maybe", false, 27 ],
 [ 16, "I", "wonder", "what", "will", "be", "fastest"]
  ]

Tests:

Array.prototype.concat
return other.concat([...subarrs]);
spread operator
return [ ...other, ...subarrs ];
Push Spread
other.push([ ...subarrs ]); return other

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.concat
spread operator
Push 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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition JSON:**

The website `MeasureThat.net` provides a benchmark definition in JSON format. In this case, we have:

* **Name**: "Array concat vs spread vs push spread, loop, apply 2"
* **Description**: The benchmark compares the new ES6 spread operator (`...`) with the traditional `concat()` method and `push` method.
* **Script Preparation Code**: This code defines an array `subarrs` containing sub-arrays with different data types. It also defines another array `other` that is used in the benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases:**

There are three test cases:

1. **Array.prototype.concat**
	* Benchmark Definition: `return other.concat([...subarrs]);`
	* This test case uses the traditional `concat()` method to concatenate `other` and `subarrs`.
2. **Spread Operator**
	* Benchmark Definition: `return [ ...other, ...subarrs ];`
	* This test case uses the ES6 spread operator (`...`) to spread `other` and `subarrs` into a new array.
3. **Push Spread**
	* Benchmark Definition: `other.push([ ...subarrs ]); return other`
	* This test case uses the push method with the spread operator to add `subarrs` to `other` and returns the updated array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Array.prototype.concat**: This is a widely supported method in older browsers, but it's less efficient than the other two approaches.
	* Pros:
		+ Wide browser support
	* Cons:
		+ Less efficient than spread operator
2. **Spread Operator ( ... )**:
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient and concise way to concatenate arrays
		+ Widely supported in modern browsers
	* Cons:
		+ May have issues with older browsers that don't support it
3. **Push Spread**: This approach is efficient but may not be as readable or concise as the spread operator.
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient and fast way to concatenate arrays
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable than the spread operator
		+ May require additional setup for older browsers

**Library and Special JS Feature:**

There are no specific libraries used in this benchmark, but it's worth noting that the ES6 spread operator (`...`) is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you want to compare other approaches, here are some alternatives:

1. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: This method can be used to concatenate arrays, but it may be less efficient than the spread operator.
2. **String concatenation with +**: This approach is not suitable for array concatenation and is generally discouraged.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and browser support considerations.

Related benchmarks:

Array concat vs spread vs push spread, loop, apply 2 (version: 0)

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

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

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

spread operator

Push 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):