Benchmark: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator vs spread push

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.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);
Push
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; params.push(...[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
Push

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.

**Overview**

The provided benchmark, "Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator vs spread push", compares the performance of three different approaches to concatenate or merge arrays in JavaScript: `Array.prototype.concat()`, the spread operator (`...`), and the `push()` method with the spread operator.

**Tested Options**

1. **Array.prototype.concat()**: This is a traditional method for concatenating arrays, which creates a new array by appending elements from one or more source arrays.
2. **Spread Operator (`...`)**: Introduced in ES6, the spread operator allows for creating a new array with elements taken from an existing array or other iterable.
3. **Push() method with spread operator**: This approach uses the `push()` method to add elements to an array and then spreads the elements using the spread operator (`...`).

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Array.prototype.concat()**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely supported in older browsers
		+ Easy to understand and implement
	* Cons:
		+ Creates a new array, which can be memory-intensive for large arrays
		+ Can be slower due to the creation of a new array object
2. **Spread Operator (`...`)** 
	* Pros:
		+ Efficient and concise way to create new arrays
		+ Supports merging multiple iterables into one array
	* Cons:
		+ Introduced in ES6, may not support older browsers or environments
		+ Can be less readable for those unfamiliar with the syntax
3. **Push() method with spread operator**
	* Pros:
		+ Combines the benefits of `push()` and the spread operator
		+ Supports both concatenation and merging arrays
	* Cons:
		+ May require additional understanding of array methods and their usage

**Library Usage**

The benchmark includes jQuery's `$.merge()` method, which is used as an alternative to the spread operator.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in this explanation. However, if we were to discuss other ES6 features like arrow functions, classes, or async/await syntax, it would require additional context and explanations.

**Alternatives**

If you prefer not to use the spread operator, you can consider using other methods for array concatenation and merging:

* `Array.prototype.push()` with argument passing (e.g., `push.apply(other, params)`)
* `Array.prototype.splice()`
* `Array.prototype.concat()` with a single array as an argument
* Using libraries like Lodash or Underscore.js that provide more extensive array manipulation functionality.

In summary, the spread operator is often the most efficient and concise way to create new arrays in modern JavaScript. However, older browsers or environments might not support it. Other approaches can be used for compatibility reasons, but they may come with additional overhead or complexity.

Related benchmarks:

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

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

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

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

spread operator

jQuery merge

Push

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):