Benchmark: Lodash.clone vs spread

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Lodash clone
var a = [{ a: 'oh' }, { b: 'my' }, { c: 'goddess' }]; var b = _.clone(a);
Spread
var a = [{ a: 'oh' }, { b: 'my' }, { c: 'goddess' }]; var b = [...a];

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash clone
Spread

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 and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: using the `_.clone()` method from Lodash and using the spread operator (`...`) to create a copy of an array.

**Lodash.clone vs Spread**

The test cases use Lodash, which is a popular JavaScript utility library. The library provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as:

* Cloning arrays and objects
* Iterating over collections
* Manipulating data structures
* And many more

In this benchmark, `_.clone()` is used to create a deep copy of the input array, while the spread operator (`...`) is used to create a shallow copy.

**Pros and Cons**

Using `_.clone()`: Pros:

* Guarantees a deep copy, which can be important for preserving complex data structures
* Can be faster for large arrays due to Lodash's optimized implementation

Cons:

* Requires importing the Lodash library, adding overhead to the benchmark
* May not be as performant as other approaches on very small input sizes

Using the spread operator (`...`): Pros:

* Does not require importing any additional libraries
* Can be faster for very small input sizes due to its simplicity
* Is a standard JavaScript feature, making it easily recognizable and debuggable

Cons:

* Only creates a shallow copy, which may not be suitable for all use cases
* May not perform well on large arrays due to the creation of multiple objects

**Other Considerations**

Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. The spread operator is generally faster and more lightweight, but it only guarantees a shallow copy. On the other hand, `_.clone()` provides a deep copy but requires importing Lodash.

If you need to create copies of complex data structures, such as objects with nested arrays or objects, `_.clone()` might be a better choice. However, if you're working with simple arrays and don't need the extra guarantees, using the spread operator could be a faster option.

**Latest Benchmark Results**

The latest results show that the spread operator performs slightly better than Lodash's `_.clone()` method on this specific benchmark. This is likely due to the simplicity of the spread operator and the fact that it doesn't require importing any additional libraries.

Keep in mind that these results may vary depending on the specific use case and input size. It's essential to consider the trade-offs between performance, readability, and maintainability when choosing a method for creating copies of data structures in your JavaScript code.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.clone vs spread (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash clone vs Spread

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash clone

Spread

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):