Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
asjdkhfgasdukyfgasdkufghjasdjhfgasjfhgasdfasjhdgkcf
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Array.prototype.concat
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = [ 1, 2 ].concat(params);
spread operator
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ] var other = [ 1, 2, ...params ]
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
Measuring JavaScript performance is essential, and MeasuringThat.net provides an excellent platform for doing so. I'll break down the provided benchmark definitions, explain what's being tested, and discuss the pros and cons of different approaches. **Benchmark Definition JSON** The provided `Benchmark Definition` JSON contains a single field: `"Name"`, which is set to a random string. This field seems unnecessary and might be used for identification purposes only. Each individual test case has two fields: * `"Benchmark Definition"`: A string representing the JavaScript code snippet that defines the benchmark. * `"Test Name"`: The name of the test, which in this case are "Array.prototype.concat" and "spread operator". **What's being tested?** The provided test cases measure the performance differences between: 1. **Array.prototype.concat**: Using the traditional concatenation method (`concat()`) vs... 2. **Spread operator**: Using the spread operator (`...`) to expand an array. **Options compared** In this case, there are only two options: traditional concatenation and the spread operator. Pros of each approach: * Traditional concatenation: + Well-established and widely supported. + Can be more efficient for small arrays due to caching optimizations in older browsers. * Spread operator: + Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) for improved performance and conciseness. + Often preferred for new development, but may have slower execution times for very large arrays. Cons of each approach: * Traditional concatenation: + Can lead to poor cache behavior, resulting in slower execution times due to repeated array allocations. + May not work as expected in older browsers that don't support the spread operator. * Spread operator: + Requires support for ES6 features, which might be a limitation on some older browsers or environments. **Library usage** There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definitions. However, if you're using libraries like Lodash or Array.prototype methods that rely on these operations, keep in mind that library-specific optimizations might affect benchmark results. **Special JS features/syntax** The `spread operator` uses a syntax feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which is widely supported by modern browsers. However, if you're targeting very old browsers or environments, this might not be compatible. **Other alternatives** If you want to explore other approaches, consider the following: * Using `Array.prototype.slice()` or `Array.prototype.push()` instead of concatenation. * Implementing a custom, optimized concat function for large arrays. * Experimenting with alternative array methods like `Flat()` and `Flatten()` (ES2019+). Keep in mind that benchmark results might vary depending on the specific JavaScript engine, browser version, and system configuration used. In summary, the provided benchmarks measure the performance differences between traditional concatenation and the spread operator. While traditional concatenation is well-established, the spread operator offers improved conciseness and potential performance benefits for new development.
Related benchmarks:
safdfsda
Find_the_substring
Word width calculation speed
dfjf2hdshsdrh
string with + vs template literals vs String.concat 4 input
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?