Benchmark: deep clone - lodash vs ramda vs json

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  author: 'Jason Carmona',
  fieldNumber: 112050642,
  nestedObject: {
    funFact1: 'You burn more calories sleeping than you do watching television',
    funFact2: 'The average person spends 6 months of their lifetime waiting on a red light to turn green',
  	funFact3: 'There are more possible iterations of a game of chess than there are atoms in the known universe',
  	funFact4: 'Coca-Cola would be green if coloring wasn’t added to it',
  	funFact5: 'You cannot snore and dream at the same time'
  }
};

var objCopy = null;

Tests:

lodash - cloneDeep
objCopy = _.cloneDeep(obj);
json - parse/stringify
objCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj));
ramda - clone
objCopy = R.clone(obj);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash - cloneDeep
json - parse/stringify
ramda - clone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/140.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 140 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

ramda - clone

2.3M/s

lodash - cloneDeep

1.3M/s

json - parse/stringify

950K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ ramda - clone	2,305,887 Ops/sec
lodash - cloneDeep	1,335,518 Ops/sec
json - parse/stringify	950,173 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 JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark compares three ways to create a deep clone of an object:

1. **Lodash**: `_._cloneDeep(obj)`
2. **JSON**: `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))`
3. **Ramda**: `R.clone(obj)`

**Libraries and their purposes:**

* **Lodash**: A popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and object manipulation.
* **Ramda**: A functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a set of higher-order functions to manipulate data.

**Comparison options:**

The benchmark compares the execution time of each approach:

1. **Lodash - cloneDeep**: Uses Lodash's `cloneDeep` function to create a deep clone of the object.
2. **JSON - parse/stringify**: Uses the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` method to create a deep clone of the object by stringifying and parsing the original object.
3. **Ramda - clone**: Uses Ramda's `R.clone` function to create a deep clone of the object.

**Pros and cons:**

* **Lodash - cloneDeep**:
	+ Pros:
		- Efficient and well-tested implementation
		- Supports complex data structures like nested objects
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an additional library (Lodash)
		- May have a higher memory footprint due to the use of a separate function call
* **JSON - parse/stringify**:
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight and easy to implement
		- Does not require an additional library
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower for large objects due to the stringification and parsing process
		- May not support all types of data (e.g., circular references)
* **Ramda - clone**:
	+ Pros:
		- Compact and concise implementation
		- Supports functional programming concepts like immutability
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an additional library (Ramda)
		- May have a higher memory footprint due to the use of a separate function call

**Special considerations:**

* None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

* For creating deep clones, other libraries like **Immer.js**, **Mycelium**, or **deep-clone** can also be used.
* For lightweight and efficient cloning, **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` alone can be used, but with caution for large objects and circular references.

The benchmark result shows the execution time of each approach on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 desktop environment with Chrome 121 browser. The Ramda implementation performs best, followed by Lodash, and then JSON. However, it's essential to consider the trade-offs between performance, memory usage, and library dependencies when choosing an approach for your specific use case.

deep clone - lodash vs ramda vs json (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `lodash - cloneDeep vs json - parse/stringify vs ramda - clone`

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

lodash - cloneDeep

json - parse/stringify

ramda - clone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

deep clone - lodash vs ramda vs json (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: lodash - cloneDeep vs json - parse/stringify vs ramda - clone

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

lodash - cloneDeep

json - parse/stringify

ramda - clone

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 - cloneDeep vs json - parse/stringify vs ramda - clone`