Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Array.prototype.slice vs spread operator (fixed version)
(version: 0)
Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional slice() method
Comparing performance of:
Array.prototype.slice vs spread operator
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
Array.prototype.slice
const params = [ "hello", true, 7 ] const other = params.slice()
spread operator
const params = [ "hello", true, 7 ] const other = [ ...params ]
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Array.prototype.slice
spread operator
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 Overview** The provided JSON represents a benchmark test between two approaches: `Array.prototype.slice` and the new ES6 spread operator (`[...]`). The goal is to compare their performance on various inputs, specifically on a fixed-size array with three elements: `"hello"`, `true`, and `7`. **Options Compared** Two options are being compared: 1. **`Array.prototype.slice()`**: This method creates a shallow copy of the original array, returning an empty array. 2. **ES6 spread operator (`[...]`)**: This syntax creates a new array by spreading the elements of the original array. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **`Array.prototype.slice()`**: + Pros: widely supported, efficient, and easy to use for large datasets. + Cons: can be slower for small arrays, as it involves creating an empty array and then copying each element. * **ES6 spread operator (`[...]`)**: + Pros: concise, fast, and suitable for small arrays. + Cons: not supported in older browsers or environments, may lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully. **Library Used** None is explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that the benchmark test might use libraries like `lodash` or `underscore` internally, but these are not mentioned here. **Special JS Features/Syntax** There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. **Other Considerations** When writing benchmarks like this one, consider the following: * Use a variety of input sizes and shapes to ensure the results are representative. * Choose a large enough sample size to reduce noise and variability. * Consider using a distributed testing environment to scale the test and gather more accurate results. * Be mindful of any limitations or quirks in your chosen browsers or environments. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance include: * `Benchmark.js`: A popular, lightweight library for running benchmarks in Node.js. * `fast-cmd`: A command-line tool for running benchmarks and measuring execution times. * `jsperf`: A simple, browser-based benchmarking tool that uses the Web Workers API to measure performance. Keep in mind that different libraries and tools may offer varying degrees of customization, flexibility, and accuracy.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.slice vs spread operator.
Array.prototype.slice vs spread operator With slightly bigger array
Array.prototype.slice vs spread operator on a bigger array
Array.prototype.slice vs spread operator - large array 100000
Array.prototype.slice vs spread operator performance
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?