Benchmark: vanilla vs jquery - $.extend vs no jquery version

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var element = {
	l1prop: {
     	l2prop: {
        	l3prop: Array.from({length: 50}, (val, i) => i)
        },
      l2prop2: {
        	l3prop: Array.from({length: 50}, (val, i) => i)
        },
    },
  l1prop2: {
        	l2prop: Array.from({length: 50}, (val, i) => i)
        },
  a: 'fsdfs',
  b: 'efwesd',
  c: 'fefsdvs',
  d: 1,
  e: 2,
  f: 'gfdgfdsgd',
  g: null,
  h: undefined
}

Tests:

Vanilla JS
function deepExtend(out, ...arguments_) { if (!out) { return {}; } for (const obj of arguments_) { if (!obj) { continue; } for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(obj)) { switch (Object.prototype.toString.call(value)) { case '[object Object]': out[key] = out[key] || {}; out[key] = deepExtend(out[key], value); break; case '[object Array]': out[key] = deepExtend(new Array(value.length), value); break; default: out[key] = value; } } } return out; } deepExtend({}, element);
JQuery
$.extend(true, {}, element);
json
JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(element));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla JS
JQuery
json

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 explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of three different approaches to create a deeply nested object:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: This approach uses the `deepExtend` function, which recursively merges objects using the `Object.prototype.toString.call(value)` method.
2. **jQuery**: This approach uses the `$` symbol from jQuery's `extend` method to merge the `element` object into a new object.
3. **JSON**: This approach uses the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(element))` method to create a deep copy of the `element` object.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these three approaches:

* **Vanilla JavaScript (deepExtend)**: The `deepExtend` function is defined as shown in the Benchmark Definition, and it's used to merge objects recursively.
* **jQuery**: The `$` symbol from jQuery's `extend` method is used to merge the `element` object into a new object.
* **JSON**: The `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(element))` method is used to create a deep copy of the `element` object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

* **Vanilla JavaScript (deepExtend)**:
	+ Pros: No external dependencies, easy to understand and implement.
	+ Cons: Can be slower due to recursive function calls, may not handle certain edge cases well.
* **jQuery**:
	+ Pros: Fast and efficient, handles many edge cases automatically.
	+ Cons: Requires an additional library (jQuery), can be less intuitive for some developers.
* **JSON**:
	+ Pros: Simple and easy to understand, handles most edge cases correctly.
	+ Cons: May not be as fast as other approaches due to parsing overhead.

**Library and purpose**

In the Benchmark Definition, jQuery is used as a library for its `extend` method. The `$` symbol is used to access this method.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None of the approaches in this benchmark use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what's described in the Benchmark Definition.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* **Lodash**: A popular utility library that includes functions like `merge` and `pick`, which can be used to merge objects.
* **Immutable.js**: A library that provides functional programming utilities for immutable data structures.
* **ES6 Object Merging**: The ES6 specification defines methods for merging objects, such as `Object.assign()` and `Object.merge()`. These approaches are often faster than the alternatives but may not handle certain edge cases well.

Keep in mind that each approach has its own trade-offs and characteristics. When choosing an approach, consider factors like performance requirements, maintainability, and compatibility with different browsers or environments.

Related benchmarks:

vanilla vs jquery - $.extend vs no jquery version (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Vanilla JS vs JQuery vs json

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla JS

JQuery

json

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):