Benchmark: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.10/lodash.fp.min.js'></script>

Tests:

Array.prototype.concat
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = [ 1, 2 ].concat(params);
spread operator
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ] var other = [ 1, 2, ...params ]
jQuery merge
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = $.merge([1, 2], params);
Lodash concat
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = _.concat(params, [1, 2]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.concat
spread operator
jQuery merge
Lodash concat

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 JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing three approaches to concatenate an array with another array:

1. `Array.prototype.concat()`
2. The new ES6 spread operator (`...`)
3. jQuery's `$.merge()` function
4. Lodash's `concat()` function

These four approaches are compared for performance, likely to determine which one is the most efficient.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

* `Array.prototype.concat()`: A traditional method of concatenating arrays.
* Spread operator (`...`): A new syntax introduced in ES6 that allows for array spreading.
* jQuery's `$merge()` function: A utility function from the jQuery library that can be used to concatenate arrays.
* Lodash's `concat()` function: A higher-order function from the Lodash library that can be used to concatenate arrays.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here are some pros and cons for each approach:

1. **`Array.prototype.concat()`**:
	* Pros: Wide browser support, well-established method.
	* Cons: Can be slower than other methods due to its iterative nature.
2. **Spread Operator (`...`)**:
	* Pros: Concise syntax, efficient execution in modern browsers.
	* Cons: Only supported in modern browsers and requires ES6+ compatibility mode.
3. **jQuery's `$merge()` function**:
	* Pros: Wide browser support through jQuery's inclusion, convenient API.
	* Cons: Additional library dependency, slower than native spread operator or Lodash's `concat()`.
4. **Lodash's `concat()` function**:
	* Pros: High-performance execution, supports older browsers with compatibility mode.
	* Cons: Additional library dependency.

**Library and Syntax Considerations**

The benchmark uses the following libraries:

1. jQuery (`$`)
2. Lodash (`_`)

These libraries provide utility functions that can be used to simplify array operations, including concatenation.

No special JavaScript features or syntax are mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Other Alternatives**

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

1. **Native `Array.prototype.push()`**: You can use `push()` to add elements to an array and then create a new array from the original array using `slice()`.
2. **`Array.prototype.reduce()`**: You can use `reduce()` to concatenate two arrays by accumulating an initial value in the callback function.
3. **`Array.prototype.map()`**: You can use `map()` to convert each element of one array to another format and then flatten the resulting array.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics compared to the approaches being tested in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator vs jQuery merge vs Lodash concat

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

spread operator

jQuery merge

Lodash concat

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):