Benchmark: reduce.concat() VS concat(...spread) VS flat()

Tests:

reduce + Array.prototype.concat
var params = [[ 1, 2 ], [ "hello", true, 7 ]]; var other = params.reduce((acc, val) => acc.concat(val), []);
Array.prototype.flat
var params = [[1, 2, params], [ "hello", true, 7 ]]; var other = params.flat();
Array.prototype.concat with spread
var params = [[ 1, 2 ], [ "hello", true, 7 ]]; var other = Array.prototype.concat(...params);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce + Array.prototype.concat
Array.prototype.flat
Array.prototype.concat with 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 its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing three different approaches for concatenating arrays in JavaScript:

1. Using `reduce()` with `Array.prototype.concat()`: This approach uses the `reduce()` method to concatenate two or more arrays.
2. Using the spread operator (`...`) with `Array.prototype.concat()`: This approach uses the spread operator to pass an array as a single argument to `Array.prototype.concat()`.
3. Using `Array.prototype.flat()`: This approach uses the `flat()` method to flatten an array, which can also be used to concatenate arrays.

**Options compared**

The three options are being compared in terms of their performance (number of executions per second).

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Reduce + Array.prototype.concat**:
	* Pros: Portable across older browsers that don't support the spread operator.
	* Cons: Less readable and more verbose than other approaches, as it requires using `reduce()` and calling `concat()`.
2. **Array.prototype.concat with spread**:
	* Pros: More readable and concise than the first approach, as it eliminates the need for `reduce()` and `concat()`.
	* Cons: Requires support for the spread operator (`...`), which may not be available in older browsers.
3. **Array.prototype.flat**:
	* Pros: Can be used to concatenate arrays, as well as flatten nested arrays.
	* Cons: May have performance implications if not implemented correctly, as it can create a new array and copy elements.

**Library usage**

There is no explicit library usage mentioned in the benchmark definition or test cases. However, `Array.prototype.concat()` and `Array.prototype.flat()` are part of the standard JavaScript API, so they don't require any additional libraries.

**Special JS features or syntax**

The spread operator (`...`) is a relatively recent addition to JavaScript (introduced in ES6). It allows an array-like object to be expanded into individual elements within an existing array or as individual elements when used with `Array.prototype.push()` or similar methods. The use of the spread operator in this benchmark highlights its versatility and conciseness.

**Other alternatives**

Some other approaches for concatenating arrays in JavaScript include:

1. Using `Array.prototype.push()`: This approach involves pushing each element of an array onto a new array, rather than using concatenation.
2. Using a `for` loop: This approach involves iterating over the elements of one or more arrays and appending them to a new array.

These alternatives are not included in this benchmark, as they were not specified in the provided test cases.

Related benchmarks:

reduce.concat() VS concat(...spread) VS flat() (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: reduce + Array.prototype.concat vs Array.prototype.flat vs Array.prototype.concat with spread

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

reduce + Array.prototype.concat

Array.prototype.flat

Array.prototype.concat with 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):