Benchmark: clone vs spread 2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/clone/2.1.2/clone.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var a = { foo: 1, bar: { john: 'doe' } };

Tests:

clone
b = clone(a); b.foo = 'erik';
spread
b = { ...a, foo: 'erik' };

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
clone
spread

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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to create a shallow copy of an object: using the `Clone()` method (provided by the `clone` library) versus using the spread operator (`{ ...a, foo: 'erik' }`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Clone() Method**: This approach uses the `Clone()` function provided by the `clone` library to create a shallow copy of the object.
2. **Spread Operator**: This approach uses the spread operator (`{ ...a, foo: 'erik' }`) to create a new object with the same properties as the original object, including modifications.

**Pros and Cons**

**Clone() Method**

Pros:

* Can be more efficient for large objects, as it only copies references to the original values.
* May have better performance in certain scenarios, such as when working with complex data structures.

Cons:

* Requires the `clone` library, which may add overhead due to its complexity and dependencies.
* May not work correctly if the object contains functions or other non-primitive values that cannot be cloned.

**Spread Operator**

Pros:

* Is a built-in JavaScript feature, so no additional libraries are required.
* Is generally simpler and more efficient than the `Clone()` method for small objects.

Cons:

* Can be slower for large objects due to the creation of a new object with multiple references to the original values.
* May not work correctly if the object contains functions or other non-primitive values that cannot be spread.

**Library: clone**

The `clone` library provides a simple and efficient way to create shallow copies of objects in JavaScript. It works by iterating over the properties of the original object and creating new properties on the cloned object with the same value.

**Special JS Feature:**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code sets up an object `a` with a nested property `bar`, which is used as the source for both benchmarks. The HTML preparation code includes a reference to the `clone` library, which is required for the `Clone()` method benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

Other approaches to creating shallow copies of objects include:

* Using the `Object.assign()` method: `{ ...a }`
* Using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(a))`: `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(a))`
* Implementing a custom copy function using recursion or iteration

Each of these alternatives has its own pros and cons, which can be explored in more detail if needed.

Related benchmarks:

clone vs spread 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: clone vs spread

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

clone

spread

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):