Benchmark: lodash test 213123

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'a',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
spread
myCopy = {...MyObject}; var a = 5 for (var j = 0; j < 1000000; j++) { a = a + j; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
cloneDeep
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 dive into the Benchmark Definition and test cases provided.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The benchmark is designed to measure the performance of two different approaches for cloning an object in JavaScript: using the `lodash.cloneDeep()` function and using the spread operator (`{...}`) with a manual increment loop.

**Lodash Library**

`lodash.cloneDeep()` is a utility function from the Lodash library, which provides a set of functional programming helpers. In this case, it's used to create a deep copy of the `MyObject` object.

The Lodash library was created by Isaac Schankies in 2009 and has since become one of the most popular JavaScript libraries for functional programming. Its purpose is to provide a collection of reusable functions that can be composed together to solve common problems.

**Spread Operator (ES6)**

The spread operator (`{...}`) is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows you to create a new object by copying the properties of an existing object. In this case, it's used to create a shallow copy of `MyObject` and then manually incrementing the value of `a` using a loop.

The spread operator is generally faster than using the `cloneDeep()` function from Lodash, as it avoids the overhead of a separate library function.

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared in this benchmark:

1. **Lodash.cloneDeep()**: This option uses the `lodash.cloneDeep()` function to create a deep copy of the object.
2. **Spread Operator (ES6)**: This option uses the spread operator (`{...}`) with a manual increment loop to create a shallow copy of the object.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash.cloneDeep()**

Pros:

* Faster development time, as it provides a pre-built function for deep copying objects.
* Can handle complex data structures, such as nested arrays or objects.

Cons:

* Adds an extra dependency on the Lodash library, which can increase the benchmark's size and complexity.
* May have performance overhead due to the additional library function call.

**Spread Operator (ES6)**

Pros:

* Faster execution time, as it avoids the overhead of a separate library function.
* Only requires ECMAScript 2015 support, making it compatible with older browsers.

Cons:

* Requires manual implementation of the increment loop, which can increase development time.
* May have performance issues if not implemented correctly (e.g., using incorrect data types).

**Other Considerations**

* **Garbage Collection**: Both options may incur garbage collection overhead, as the benchmark creates and discards large amounts of data. However, this effect is likely to be negligible compared to other factors affecting performance.
* **JavaScript Engine Optimization**: Modern JavaScript engines are optimized for performance, so the impact of these optimizations on real-world applications is likely to be small.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for creating deep copies of objects in JavaScript include:

* Using `Object.assign()` and then modifying the original object
* Using a library like Immutable.js
* Implementing a custom deep copy function using recursion or iteration

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs between development time, performance, and complexity.

Related benchmarks:

lodash test 213123 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: cloneDeep vs spread

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

cloneDeep

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):