Benchmark: Deep clone comparison

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.6.0/jquery.min.js" integrity="sha512-894YE6QWD5I59HgZOGReFYm4dnWc1Qt5NtvYSaNcOP+u1T9qYdvdihz0PPSiiqn/+/3e7Jo4EaG7TubfWGUrMQ==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js" integrity="sha512-WFN04846sdKMIP5LKNphMaWzU7YpMyCU245etK3g/2ARYbPK9Ub18eG+ljU96qKRCWh+quCY7yefSmlkQw1ANQ==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>

Tests:

Lodash.cloneDeep()
const arr1 = [ true, 1, "true", [], {}, function () {} ]; // Deep copies: true, 1, "true", [], {}, function () {} const arr2 = _.cloneDeep(arr1);
jQuery.extend(true)
const arr1 = [ true, 1, "true", [], {}, function () {} ]; // Deep copies: true, 1, "true", [], {}, function () {} const arr2 = jQuery.extend(true, [], arr1);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash.cloneDeep()
jQuery.extend(true)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Lodash.cloneDeep()

2.0M/s

jQuery.extend(true)

1.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Lodash.cloneDeep()	2,006,083 Ops/sec
jQuery.extend(true)	1,793,526 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: "Deep clone comparison" and its individual test cases, "Lodash.cloneDeep()" and "jQuery.extend(true)".

**What is being tested?**

These benchmarks aim to compare the performance of two methods for creating deep copies of an object in JavaScript:

1. **Lodash.cloneDeep()**: a function from the popular utility library Lodash.
2. **jQuery.extend(true)**: a method from the jQuery library, specifically designed to create deep copies.

**Options compared**

The benchmarks compare the execution time and performance of these two methods, which can be considered as different approaches:

1. **Lodash.cloneDeep()**: uses a recursive approach with multiple checks for different types of objects (arrays, objects, etc.) to ensure accurate deep copying.
2. **jQuery.extend(true)**: modifies the original object by assigning it a new property with the modified value.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash.cloneDeep():**

Pros:

* More comprehensive and flexible method for creating deep copies
* Handles various data types (arrays, objects, etc.) accurately
* Often used in larger applications where deep copying is necessary

Cons:

* May be slower due to its recursive nature and multiple checks
* Requires importing the Lodash library, which may add overhead

**jQuery.extend(true):**

Pros:

* Faster execution time due to its optimized implementation for deep copying
* Lightweight and easy to use

Cons:

* Less comprehensive than Lodash.cloneDeep() and only handles a specific type of data (objects)
* Modifies the original object, which might not be desirable in all cases

**Other considerations:**

1. **Memory allocation**: Both methods create new objects for deep copying. However, jQuery.extend(true) may allocate less memory due to its optimized implementation.
2. **Readability and maintainability**: Lodash.cloneDeep() is often considered more readable and maintainable due to its explicit checks for different data types.

**Library explanations**

1. **Lodash.js**: a popular utility library providing various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object creation, and more.
2. **jQuery**: a widely-used JavaScript library for DOM manipulation and event handling, also offering an extend method for creating deep copies.

**Special JS feature or syntax: none mentioned in this benchmark**

Now that you know what's being tested and compared, you can better understand the trade-offs between these two methods when it comes to deep cloning objects in JavaScript.

Deep clone comparison (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Lodash.cloneDeep() vs jQuery.extend(true)`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash.cloneDeep()

jQuery.extend(true)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Deep clone comparison (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Lodash.cloneDeep() vs jQuery.extend(true)

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash.cloneDeep()

jQuery.extend(true)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Lodash.cloneDeep() vs jQuery.extend(true)`