Benchmark: Compare spread against clone

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.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:

Clone with lodash
myCopy = _.clone(MyObject);
JS
myCopy = {}; for(let k in MyObject) { myCopy[k] = MyObject[k]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Clone with lodash
JS

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 JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for creating a deep copy of an object in JavaScript:

1. Using the `clone()` method from the Lodash library (`_.clone(MyObject)`).
2. Creating a new object manually using a `for` loop (`myCopy = {};\r\n\r\nfor(let k in MyObject) {\r\n\tmyCopy[k] = MyObject[k];\r\n}`).

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Lodash's `clone()` method**: A utility function that creates a deep copy of an object. This approach is likely to be more efficient and concise, but may have performance overhead due to the library's abstraction.
* **Manual creation using a `for` loop**: A naive approach that iterates over each property of the original object and copies it manually. This approach is likely to be slower and more verbose.

**Pros and Cons**

* Lodash's `clone()` method:
	+ Pros: Concise, efficient, and easy to use.
	+ Cons: May have performance overhead due to library abstraction.
* Manual creation using a `for` loop:
	+ Pros: No external dependencies, simple to understand.
	+ Cons: Slow, verbose, and error-prone.

**Library**

The benchmark uses the Lodash library, which is a popular utility library for JavaScript. The `clone()` method is specifically designed to create deep copies of objects.

**JavaScript Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines and browsers may have performance optimizations or specific behavior when dealing with object cloning.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for creating deep copies of objects include:

* `Object.assign()`: Creates a shallow copy of an object.
* `Array.prototype.slice()`: Creates a shallow copy of an array.
* Using the `JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()` methods, which can create a JSON representation of an object that can be parsed back into an object.

The benchmark provides a simple and concise way to compare the performance of these different approaches in creating deep copies of objects.

Related benchmarks:

Compare spread against clone (version: 0)

Compare spread against clone

Comparing performance of: Clone with lodash vs JS

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Clone with lodash

JS

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):