Benchmark: JavaScript spread operator vs Object.assign performance, non destructive2

Tests:

Using the spread operator
function add(number1, number2){ return number1 + number2; } const result = add(1,5);
Using Object.assign
function add({number1, number2}){ return number1 + number2; } const result = add({number1: 1, number2: 5});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Using the spread operator
Using Object.assign

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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is defined by the user, but in this case, it's not explicitly stated. However, based on the individual test cases, we can infer that the benchmark is comparing the performance of using the spread operator (`...`) versus `Object.assign` to merge two objects.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Using the spread operator**: The spread operator is a new way of merging objects introduced in ECMAScript 2018 (ES2018). It uses three dots (`...`) to expand an object's properties into a new object.
2. **Using `Object.assign`**: `Object.assign` is a built-in JavaScript method that merges two or more objects into a single object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Using the spread operator:**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Easier to understand, especially for developers familiar with modern JavaScript syntax

Cons:

* May not be supported in older browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer)
* Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., when dealing with function arguments or inheritance)

**Using `Object.assign`:**

Pros:

* More widely supported across browsers and versions
* Allows for more control over the merging process (e.g., specifying which properties to merge)

Cons:

* Less concise and less readable code
* Can be error-prone if not used carefully

**Other Considerations**

In this specific benchmark, it's likely that the performance difference between the two approaches will depend on various factors, such as the size of the objects being merged, the number of properties to merge, and the browser's implementation details.

**Library or Special JavaScript Feature Usage**

There are no libraries used in this benchmark. However, note that using the spread operator is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ES2018 (ES9). If you're running this benchmark on an older JavaScript engine, it might not support the spread operator.

**Individual Test Cases**

The two test cases provided differ only in how they define the function argument:

1. `Using the spread operator`: The function argument uses the spread operator (`...`) to merge properties.
2. `Using Object.assign`: The function argument uses `Object.assign` to merge properties.

In both cases, the expected behavior is to return the sum of the two numbers passed as arguments.

**Alternative Benchmarks**

If you'd like to explore alternative approaches, consider these:

1. Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` or `Math.max()` and `Math.min()` instead of `Object.assign`.
2. Comparing performance with other merging methods, such as using a library like Lodash.
3. Testing the performance of different browsers or versions.

Keep in mind that benchmarking is an art, and the best approach will depend on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

JavaScript spread operator vs Object.assign performance, non destructive2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Using the spread operator vs Using Object.assign

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Using the spread operator

Using Object.assign

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):