Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
trdyfuge564rdftuystredyfu
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Object.assign vs spread operator vs lodash extend vs Manual Update
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Tests:
Object.assign
var params = { b:"hello", c: true, d:7 }; var other = Object.assign({ a: 2 }, params);
spread operator
var params = { b:"hello", c: true, d:7 }; var other = { a: 2, ...params };
lodash extend
var params = { b:"hello", c: true, d:7 }; var other = _.extend({ a: 2 }, params);
Manual Update
var params = { b:"hello", c: true, d:7 }; params.a = 2; params.b = "NEW TEXT";
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Object.assign
spread operator
lodash extend
Manual Update
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):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! **Benchmark Definition** The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition for MeasureThat.net, which allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The key fields in this JSON are: * `Name`: A unique name for the benchmark. * `Description`: An optional description of the benchmark (in this case, empty). * `Script Preparation Code`: Optional code that is executed before running the benchmark. In this case, it includes a script from a CDN that loads the Lodash library. * `Html Preparation Code`: Optional HTML code that is included in the benchmark's page (again, loading the Lodash library). **Options being compared** The benchmark compares four different approaches for updating an object: 1. **Object.assign**: Uses the built-in JavaScript method to merge two objects. 2. **Spread operator**: Uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new object with updated properties. 3. **Lodash extend**: Utilizes the `_.extend` method from the Lodash library to merge two objects. 4. **Manual Update**: Manually updates the object's properties. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: 1. **Object.assign**: * Pros: Fast, widely supported, and well-documented. * Cons: Can be slower than other methods for large objects or complex merges. 2. **Spread operator**: * Pros: Simple, efficient, and modern syntax. * Cons: May not work as expected in older browsers or with certain data types (e.g., null or undefined). 3. **Lodash extend**: * Pros: Provides a robust and flexible way to merge objects, including support for complex data structures. * Cons: Adds an external dependency (Lodash), which may increase the benchmark's size and complexity. 4. **Manual Update**: * Pros: Can be optimized for specific use cases or requirements. * Cons: More verbose and error-prone than other approaches. **Library usage** The Lodash library is used in two of the benchmarks: 1. **Lodash extend**: The `_.extend` method is used to merge objects. 2. **Script Preparation Code**: The CDN script loads the entire Lodash library, which can be beneficial for benchmarking purposes (e.g., testing performance with a large set of functions). **Special JavaScript features** The spread operator (`...`) and object destructuring are used in two of the benchmarks: 1. **Spread operator**: Creates a new object with updated properties using the spread operator. 2. **Manual Update**: Uses object destructuring to update individual properties. Keep in mind that these features are widely supported in modern browsers, but may not work as expected in older browsers or with specific data types. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in exploring other approaches, here are a few: 1. `Object.create()`: Creates a new object with a specified prototype. 2. `JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()`: Can be used to serialize and deserialize objects, respectively. 3. Custom implementations using `for` loops or recursive functions. However, these alternatives may not offer the same level of performance, simplicity, or readability as the approaches being compared in this benchmark.
Related benchmarks:
kjlh,j,hkljh
isString
Lodash vs Ramda fromPairs
Map (Lodash vs Lodash/fp vs Immutable) new versions
lodash vs radash 3
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?