Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Object.assign vs mutation
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Object.assign without creating new obj vs mutation
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var translations = {foo: 'bar'};
Tests:
Object.assign without creating new obj
Object.assign(translations, {'loading': 'Loading'});
mutation
translations.loading = 'Loading';
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Object.assign without creating new obj
mutation
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 definition and test cases. **What is tested?** The benchmark compares two approaches: 1. **Mutation**: In this approach, the original object `translations` is modified directly by assigning a new value to one of its properties (`loading = 'Loading'`). This is equivalent to changing the original data. 2. **Object.assign without creating a new object**: In this approach, `Object.assign()` is used to create a shallow copy of the `translations` object and then assign a new value to the `loading` property on the resulting object. **Options compared** The two approaches have different implications for performance, memory usage, and code readability: * **Mutation**: + Pros: Generally faster, as it avoids creating a new object. + Cons: Can lead to unexpected side effects if the original data is modified unexpectedly. Also, modern browsers may optimize this approach, making it faster. + Considerations: This approach can be convenient when working with immutable objects or when the modification is intended to be temporary. * **Object.assign without creating a new object**: + Pros: More explicit and predictable behavior, as it creates a new object that is independent of the original data. Can also help prevent unintended side effects. + Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of creating a new object and copying its properties. **Library usage** There is no library mentioned in the provided benchmark definition or test cases. The `Object.assign()` method is a built-in JavaScript function. **Special JS feature or syntax** The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, promises, or modern language features like nullish coalescing (`??`). **Other alternatives** Alternative approaches to compare in this benchmark could be: * **Object.create()**: Instead of using `Object.assign()`, you could create a new object with the same prototype as `translations` and then assign values to its properties. This approach would create a new object but might have similar performance characteristics to mutation. * **Array.prototype.map()` or other array methods**: If working with arrays, you could use an array method like `map()` or `forEach()` to create a new array or perform some operation on the original data. Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and clear comparison between two approaches that are commonly used in JavaScript programming.
Related benchmarks:
Object.assign vs mutation assign
Testytesty2
Object.assign mutation vs spread
Object.assign vs spreading object copy
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?