Benchmark: ramda append vs array shallow

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr = ['I','a','m','a','r','r','a','y','t','o','c','h','e','c','k'];

Tests:

shallow
var result = [...arr, '!!!']
ramda append
var result = R.append('!!!', arr);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
shallow
ramda append

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:129.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/129.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 129 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

ramda append

4.1M/s

shallow

2.5M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ ramda append	4,114,823 Ops/sec
shallow	2,489,552 Ops/sec

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 its test cases.

**What is tested?**

The benchmark tests two approaches to append an element to an array:

1. **Shallow approach**: Using the spread operator (`...`) to create a new array by appending the desired element to the original array.
2. **Ramda `append` method**: A functional programming library function that appends an element to an existing array.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* Shallow approach using JavaScript's built-in spread operator
* Ramda's `append` method

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Shallow approach (using spread operator)**
	* Pros:
		+ Native JavaScript implementation, likely to be faster and more efficient.
		+ Easy to understand and implement for developers familiar with JavaScript.
	* Cons:
		+ Can create a new array object if the original array is large, which can lead to performance issues in certain scenarios (e.g., when dealing with large arrays or performance-critical code).
2. **Ramda `append` method**
	* Pros:
		+ Encapsulates the logic for appending an element to an array, making it easier to read and maintain.
		+ May be faster than the shallow approach due to optimized implementations in libraries like Ramda.
	* Cons:
		+ Introduces a dependency on the Ramda library, which may not be desirable for all projects or users.
		+ Can add overhead due to function call and object lookup.

**Ramda library**

The `append` method is part of the Ramda functional programming library. Ramda provides a set of utility functions that make it easier to work with arrays and objects in a functional programming style. The `append` method takes two arguments: an element to append and the array to which the element will be appended.

**Special JavaScript feature/syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark, as both test cases use standard JavaScript and Ramda's library.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to compare other approaches, consider adding test cases for:

* Using `push` method (a native JavaScript method) instead of the spread operator.
* Using a custom implementation for appending an element to an array (e.g., using a loop).
* Comparing performance with different array sizes or data structures (e.g., arrays vs. linked lists).

By adding more test cases, you can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the performance characteristics and trade-offs involved in different approaches to appending elements to arrays in JavaScript.

ramda append vs array shallow (version: 1) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `shallow vs ramda append`

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

shallow

ramda append

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

ramda append vs array shallow (version: 1) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: shallow vs ramda append

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

shallow

ramda append

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Comparing performance of: `shallow vs ramda append`