Benchmark: Angular clone vs Lodash cloneDeep

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/angularjs/1.8.3/angular.min.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Angular copy
myCopy = angular.copy(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Angular copy

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash cloneDeep	1730020.6 Ops/sec
Angular copy	2648191.8 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 on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark in question compares two approaches to create a deep copy of an object: AngularJS and Lodash. The test case uses a sample object `MyObject` with nested properties, including a JSON object (`jayson`) and various types (number, boolean, etc.). The goal is to measure the performance difference between using `angular.copy()` and `_cloneDeep()` from Lodash.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **AngularJS Copy**: Using `angular.copy(MyObject)` to create a deep copy of `MyObject`.
2. **Lodash Clone Deep**: Using `_cloneDeep(MyObject)` to create a deep copy of `MyObject`, courtesy of the Lodash library.

**Pros and Cons**

### AngularJS Copy

Pros:

* Lightweight: As part of the AngularJS framework, this approach is relatively small in size (around 30 KB).
* Familiarity: If you're already using AngularJS, this approach might feel more familiar and easier to use.

Cons:

* Limited flexibility: The `angular.copy()` method only works with objects that are serializable, which might limit its usage.
* Potential side effects: Depending on the implementation, `angular.copy()` might not create a deep copy of all nested properties.

### Lodash Clone Deep

Pros:

* General-purpose: `_cloneDeep()` is part of a more extensive library (Lodash) with many other utility functions, making it a versatile choice.
* Robustness: The implementation of `_cloneDeep()` has been extensively tested and is designed to handle various types and nested structures.

Cons:

* Larger size: As part of the Lodash library, this approach requires including an additional dependency (~70 KB).

**Library Overview**

The `lodash` library (specifically, the `cloneDeep` function) provides a more comprehensive set of utility functions for working with data. The `_cloneDeep()` function is designed to create deep copies of objects, which can be particularly useful in many JavaScript applications.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to deep copying objects, consider:

1. **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))**: This method creates a shallow copy of the object, but it's often sufficient for simple cases.
2. **Object.assign()**: While not designed specifically for deep copying, `Object.assign()` can be used in conjunction with other methods (e.g., `JSON.parse`) to achieve the desired result.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs in terms of performance, size, and flexibility. The choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Angular clone vs Lodash cloneDeep (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Angular copy

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Angular copy

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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