Benchmark: reduce.concat() vs flat() 2

Tests:

reduce + Array.prototype.concat
var params = [[ 1, 2 ], [ "hello", true, 7 ]]; var other = params.reduce((acc, val) => acc.concat(val), []);
Array.prototype.flat
var params = [[1, 2 ], [ "hello", true, 7 ]]; var other = params.flat();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
reduce + Array.prototype.concat
Array.prototype.flat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

reduce + Array.prototype.concat

11.5M/s

Array.prototype.flat

8.2M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ reduce + Array.prototype.concat	11,501,499 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.flat	8,230,029 Ops/sec

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 comparing two approaches for concatenating arrays in JavaScript:

1. The traditional `concat()` method (old way).
2. A new ES6 spread operator (`...`) for flattening arrays (new way).

**Options Compared**

* Old approach: Using `Array.prototype.concat()` to concatenate arrays.
* New approach: Using the ES6 spread operator (`...`) to flatten arrays.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Old Approach (concat())**

Pros:

* Widely supported by older browsers and JavaScript versions.
* Easy to understand and implement.

Cons:

* Can be slower than modern approaches due to its iterative nature.
* May lead to memory issues if not handled correctly.

**New Approach (ES6 Spread Operator)**

Pros:

* Faster execution speed due to its vectorized operation.
* More efficient memory usage.
* Modern and widely adopted by most browsers and JavaScript versions.

Cons:

* Requires support for ES6 features, which may not be available in older browsers or JavaScript versions.
* Less intuitive than traditional `concat()` method for some developers.

**Library/Tool Used**

The benchmark uses the `reduce()` method to concatenate arrays. This is a built-in JavaScript function that applies a reduction operation (in this case, concatenation) to an array. The `flat()` method is also used, which is a more modern array flattening function introduced in ECMAScript 2019.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

The benchmark uses the ES6 spread operator (`...`) for flattening arrays, which is a new syntax introduced in JavaScript ES6. This feature allows for concise and expressive way to flatten arrays.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to concatenate or flatten arrays in JavaScript, other alternatives include:

* Using `Array.prototype.push()` and `Array.prototype.concat()`
* Using `Array.prototype.splice()` and `Array.prototype.concat()`
* Using a library like Lodash (`_.concat()`) or Ramda (`ramda.concat()`)
* Using a custom implementation using loops or recursion.

Note that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and compatibility with different browsers and JavaScript versions.

reduce.concat() vs flat() 2 (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: `reduce + Array.prototype.concat vs Array.prototype.flat`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

reduce + Array.prototype.concat

Array.prototype.flat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

reduce.concat() vs flat() 2 (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: reduce + Array.prototype.concat vs Array.prototype.flat

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

reduce + Array.prototype.concat

Array.prototype.flat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `reduce + Array.prototype.concat vs Array.prototype.flat`