Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
ECMA .flat() vs Custom .flatten() (noop flatten)
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
ECMA .flat() vs Custom .flatten()
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var arr = Array(5000).fill(1);
Tests:
ECMA .flat()
function flatten(list) { return list.flat(9999) } flatten(arr);
Custom .flatten()
function flatten(list, dst) { if (dst === undefined) dst = list; for (let i = 0; i < list.length; i++) { let item = list[i]; if (Array.isArray(item)) { // we need to inline it. if (dst === list) { // Our assumption that the list was already flat was wrong and // we need to clone flat since we need to write to it. dst = list.slice(0, i); } flatten(item, dst); } else if (dst !== list) { dst.push(item); } } return dst; } flatten(arr);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
ECMA .flat()
Custom .flatten()
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 benchmark and its test cases. **What is being tested?** The benchmark compares two approaches to implementing the `flat()` method in JavaScript: 1. **ECMA `.flat()`**: This implementation uses the built-in `flat()` method of the `Array` prototype, which was introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES10). 2. **Custom `.flatten()`**: This implementation is a custom function named `flatten()` that mimics the behavior of the built-in `flat()` method. **Options compared** The benchmark compares two options: 1. Using the built-in `flat()` method of the `Array` prototype. 2. Implementing a custom `flatten()` function to achieve similar results. **Pros and Cons** **ECMA `.flat()`:** Pros: * Built-in support in most modern browsers, making it a reliable choice. * Efficient implementation, as it leverages native code. * Easy to use and understand. Cons: * Not supported in older browsers or environments without ES10+ support. * Limited control over the flattening process. **Custom `.flatten()`:** Pros: * More control over the flattening process, allowing for custom optimizations or edge cases handling. * Can be implemented in a way that's more efficient than the built-in `flat()` method. Cons: * Requires implementing and maintaining the custom logic, which can add complexity. * May not be as efficient as the built-in implementation on modern browsers. **Library usage** Neither of the test cases uses any external libraries. The built-in `Array.prototype.flat()` method is used in one case, and a custom function named `flatten()` is implemented in the other case. **Special JS feature or syntax** The benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax that's not part of the standard language. It only leverages the built-in `flat()` method and implements a custom `flatten()` function to demonstrate its usage. **Other alternatives** If you want to explore alternative approaches, consider the following: 1. Using other methods like `reduce()`, `map()`, or `forEach()` to achieve flattening. 2. Implementing a recursive approach using `for` loops. 3. Using specialized libraries like Lodash or Ramda for functional programming. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or elegant as the built-in `flat()` method or the custom implementation. In summary, the benchmark provides a clear comparison between two approaches to implementing the `.flat()` method: the built-in ECMAScript 2020 implementation and a custom function. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, you can make informed decisions about when to use each one in your own projects.
Related benchmarks:
flatMap vs map/flat
flatMap vs flat+map
Reduce Push vs. flatMap with subarrays
flat() vs flatMap()
flatMap vs map/flat 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?