Benchmark: Array From vs lodash clone

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = new Array(100000000).fill(0);

Tests:

Lodash clone
_.clone(arr);
Array from
Array.from(arr)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash clone
Array from

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/126.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/112.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 112 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Array from

3/s

Lodash clone

0/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Array from	3 Ops/sec
Lodash clone	0 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.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using the `Array.from()` method versus the `_.clone()` function from the Lodash library. The test creates an array of 100 million zeros, then performs each operation on it.

**Options compared:**

1. **`Array.from(arr)`**: This method creates a new array by iterating over an existing array and creating a new element for each iteration.
2. **`.clone()` from Lodash**: This function creates a deep copy of the input value (in this case, the `arr` array).

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **`Array.from(arr)`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Creates a shallow copy of the original array.
		+ Can be faster because it avoids creating a new array object with multiple prototype chains.
	* Cons:
		+ May not preserve the exact same structure as the original array (e.g., nested arrays or objects).
		+ Can be slower for very large arrays, since it involves iteration.
2. **`.clone()` from Lodash**:
	* Pros:
		+ Preserves the exact same structure as the original array (including nested arrays and objects).
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower because it creates a new object with multiple prototype chains.
		+ Can lead to memory issues if dealing with very large datasets.

**Library:**

The Lodash library is used for its `clone()` function, which creates a deep copy of the input value. This helps ensure that the original array's structure is preserved.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other considerations:**

This benchmark focuses on the performance difference between these two approaches for creating a shallow copy of an array. It does not test other aspects, such as memory usage or handling edge cases.

**Alternatives:**

For creating arrays or copies of arrays, alternative methods include:

1. Using `Array.prototype.slice()` to create a shallow copy.
2. Using the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array from an existing one.
3. Using libraries like Immutable.js (for immutable data structures) or Ramda (for functional programming utilities).

Keep in mind that the choice of method depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and desired behavior (e.g., preserving structure vs. efficiency).

Array From vs lodash clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Lodash clone vs Array from`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash clone

Array from

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Array From vs lodash clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash clone vs Array from

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash clone

Array from

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: `Lodash clone vs Array from`