Benchmark: _.cloneDeep vs JSON Clone vs Ramda Clone

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 MyObject = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Json clone
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));
Ramda clone
myCopy = R.clone(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Json clone
Ramda clone

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 JSON and explain what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Description**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to create a deep copy of an object: `_cloneDeep` from Lodash, `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`, and `R.clone()` from Ramda. The object being cloned is called `MyObject`, which contains nested objects and values like numbers and booleans.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests the following options:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**: This function creates a deep copy of an object by recursively cloning its properties.
2. **JSON Clone**: This approach uses the `JSON.parse()` method to parse the JSON representation of the original object, which effectively clones it.
3. **Ramda Clone**: This function from Ramda's library creates a deep copy of an object by recursively cloning its properties.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**:
	* Pros: Efficient, fast, and widely used.
	* Cons: Additional dependency on Lodash, might not work as expected with certain data types (e.g., dates, functions).
2. **JSON Clone**:
	* Pros: Simple, lightweight, and works with most data types.
	* Cons: Slower than Lodash cloneDeep due to the extra parsing step.
3. **Ramda Clone**:
	* Pros: Similar to Lodash cloneDeep in terms of performance and functionality.
	* Cons: Additional dependency on Ramda, might not be as widely used or recognized.

**Library Explanation**

In this benchmark, two libraries are used:

1. **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript library providing functional programming helpers, including `cloneDeep`.
2. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a `clone` function for creating deep copies of objects.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to cloning objects, consider:

1. **Array.prototype.slice()**: Creates a shallow copy of an array by slicing it.
2. **Object.assign()**: Copies the values of one object to another.
3. **For...in loops with Object.create()**: Manually creates a deep copy of an object using nested for loops.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as efficient or robust as the benchmarked approaches, but they can still provide useful insights into alternative solutions.

Related benchmarks:

_.cloneDeep vs JSON Clone vs Ramda Clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Json clone vs Ramda clone

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Json clone

Ramda clone

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):