Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep VS spread operator w/ extend

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: 'a',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  deeper: {
    we: "must",
    go: "deeper"
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.extend(_.cloneDeep(MyObject), {more: "props"});
Spread operator
myCopy = {...MyObject, more: "props"};

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
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 llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the details of this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to create a deep copy of an object in JavaScript:

1. **Lodash `cloneDeep`**: This approach uses the `_.cloneDeep` function from the Lodash library to create a deep copy of an object.
2. **Spread operator with `extend`**: This approach uses the spread operator (`{...}`) to create a shallow copy of an object, and then extends it using the `extend` method.

**What options are compared?**

The two test cases compare the performance of these two approaches in creating a deep copy of the provided object (`MyObject`). The object has several levels of nesting, which makes it more challenging to clone correctly.

**Pros/Cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash `cloneDeep`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easy to use and understand
		+ Robust implementation that handles complex nested objects
	* Cons:
		+ Requires including the Lodash library, which adds overhead
		+ May be slower than custom implementations due to the overhead of a separate library
2. **Spread operator with `extend`**:
	* Pros:
		+ No additional library dependencies
		+ Can be implemented using standard JavaScript syntax and methods (e.g., `Object.assign`)
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual implementation and error handling for complex nested objects
		+ May not handle all edge cases correctly, leading to potential bugs or unexpected behavior

**Library usage:**

The Lodash library is used in this benchmark. Specifically, the `_.cloneDeep` function is utilized to create a deep copy of the object.

**Special JavaScript feature/syntax:**

None are explicitly mentioned in the provided code.

**Alternative approaches:**

Other alternatives for creating a deep copy of an object include:

1. **Recursive cloning**: Implementing a recursive function that clones each property and its nested objects.
2. **Using `JSON.parse` and `JSON.stringify`**: Serializing the object to JSON, then parsing it back to create a new copy.
3. **Using a custom implementation with `Object.assign`**: Extending the spread operator approach using `Object.assign` and manual error handling.

These alternatives may have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to the approaches tested in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep VS spread operator w/ extend (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Spread operator

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Spread operator

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):