Benchmark: Compare spread dots 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 = {...MyObject};

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 benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two ways to create a copy of an object: using the spread operator (`...`) and using the `_.clone()` function from the Lodash library.

**Options Being Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Spread Operator (JS)**: This approach uses the syntax `{...myObject}` to create a shallow copy of the original object.
2. **Lodash's _.clone() function**: This approach uses the `_.clone()` function from the Lodash library to create a deep copy of the original object.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Spread Operator (JS)**:
	+ Pros: Simple, concise, and widely supported in modern JavaScript engines. It creates a shallow copy, which might be sufficient for most use cases.
	+ Cons: Only creates a shallow copy, which means it doesn't recursively copy nested objects or arrays. This can lead to issues if the original object contains complex data structures.
* **Lodash's _.clone() function**:
	+ Pros: Creates a deep copy of the original object, ensuring that all nested properties and arrays are properly copied.
	+ Cons: Requires including an additional library (Lodash) in your project, which may add unnecessary dependencies.

**Library Used**

The Lodash library is used in the benchmark for its `_.clone()` function. Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of the spread operator (`...`) is a relatively recent addition to the JavaScript language, introduced in ECMAScript 2018 (ES2018).

**Other Alternatives**

If you don't want to use Lodash, you can create a deep copy of an object using other methods, such as:

* Using the `JSON.parse()` and `JSON.stringify()` methods with the `replacer` option set to a function that recursively clones nested objects.
* Using a recursive function to clone the object by iterating over its properties and creating new objects or arrays for each one.

For example:
```javascript
function cloneObject(obj) {
  if (typeof obj === 'object' && obj !== null) {
    const newObj = {};
    for (const key in obj) {
      newObj[key] = cloneObject(obj[key]);
    }
    return newObj;
  } else {
    return obj;
  }
}

const myCopy = cloneObject(MyObject);
```
These alternatives can be more verbose and error-prone than using the spread operator or Lodash's `_.clone()` function, but they provide a way to achieve deep object copying without relying on external libraries.

Related benchmarks:

Compare spread dots 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):