Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Native concat() vs ES6 spread [2]
(version: 0)
Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method
Comparing performance of:
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
random = () => Array(50).fill(Math.floor(Math.random() * 9)) arr1 = random(); arr2 = random();
Tests:
Array.prototype.concat
const other = arr1.concat(arr2);
spread operator
const other = [ ...arr1, ...arr2]
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Array.prototype.concat
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
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Description** The benchmark compares two approaches to concatenate arrays: the traditional `Array.prototype.concat()` method and the new ES6 spread operator (`[ ...arr1, ...arr2]`). **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **Traditional `concat()` method**: This is the legacy way of concatenating arrays in JavaScript. 2. **ES6 spread operator**: A more concise way of concatenating arrays introduced in ECMAScript 2015. **Pros and Cons** * **Traditional `concat()` method**: + Pros: widely supported, easy to use, and has been around for a long time. + Cons: can be slower than the ES6 spread operator due to its overhead and creation of new arrays on each invocation. * **ES6 spread operator**: + Pros: more concise, efficient, and often faster than the traditional `concat()` method because it avoids creating new arrays and uses a single array operation. + Cons: might not be as widely supported in older browsers or versions of JavaScript. **Library Usage** There is no explicit library usage mentioned in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in knowing about libraries that can simplify array concatenation, some popular ones include: * Lodash (specifically `_.concat()`): A utility library for functional programming. * Ramda: A functional programming library that includes a `concat` function. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript syntax and do not rely on any advanced features like async/await, promises, or ES6 modules. **Other Alternatives** If you want to compare array concatenation methods with other alternatives, consider the following: * Using `Array.prototype.reduce()` instead of `concat()`: This can be a more efficient approach in some cases. * Using `Array.prototype.push()` multiple times: This can be slower than using `concat()` or the spread operator. For this specific benchmark, the ES6 spread operator is likely to be faster and more efficient due to its optimized implementation and avoidance of unnecessary array creations.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator
Array concat vs spread operator vs push with random array 10000
Array concat vs spread operator [2]
Array concat vs spread operator vs push 100k
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?