Benchmark: concat vs lodash.concat

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Array.prototype.concat
var params = [ "hello", "hello", "sname" ]; var other = [ "red", "wine" ].concat(params);
Lodash concat
var params = [ "hello", "hello", "sname" ]; var other = _.concat([ "red", "wine" ], params);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.concat
Lodash concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.prototype.concat	5356216.0 Ops/sec
Lodash concat	2657948.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark test case.

**What is being tested?**

The test case compares two different approaches to concatenating arrays in JavaScript:

1. **Array.prototype.concat**: This is the native JavaScript method for concatenating arrays. It takes one or more arrays as arguments and returns a new array that combines all the elements from each input array.
2. **Lodash concat**: This uses the `concat` function from the Lodash library, which is a popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript.

**What options are compared?**

The test case compares two different implementations of concatenating arrays:

* Using the native JavaScript method `Array.prototype.concat`
* Using the `concat` function from the Lodash library

**Pros and cons:**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Array.prototype.concat**
	+ Pros:
		- Native JavaScript implementation, so it's likely to be optimized by modern browsers.
		- No external library dependencies required.
	+ Cons:
		- May have performance issues for large array concatenations due to its iterative nature.
* **Lodash concat**
	+ Pros:
		- May provide better performance for large array concatenations due to its optimized implementation.
		- Part of a popular utility library that can be used for other functional programming tasks.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an external library (Lodash) to be included in the project.

**Other considerations:**

* **Library usage**: The test case uses Lodash, which is a popular utility library. If you're already using Lodash in your project, it might make sense to use its `concat` function for array concatenation.
* **Browser support**: Both native JavaScript and Lodash implementations should work in modern browsers that support the relevant versions of JavaScript (ECMAScript 5 or later).
* **Code readability**: Using the native JavaScript method is likely more readable and maintainable, especially for simple cases. However, using a library like Lodash can make your code look more consistent with other parts of your project.

**Alternative approaches:**

If you're looking for alternative ways to concatenate arrays in JavaScript, consider these options:

* **Spread operator**: You can use the spread operator (`...`) to concatenate arrays in a more concise way. For example: `[1, 2].concat([3, 4])` becomes `[1, 2, ...[3, 4]]`.
* **Array comprehension**: If you're using a transpiler like Babel or a modern JavaScript engine that supports ECMAScript 2018 (ES2018) syntax, you can use array comprehension to concatenate arrays in a more functional programming style.

Overall, this benchmark test case provides valuable insights into the performance differences between native JavaScript and library-based implementations for array concatenation.

Related benchmarks:

concat vs lodash.concat (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.concat vs Lodash concat

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

Lodash concat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):