Benchmark: test1 array concat vs spred 3

Script Preparation code:

var params = ["hello", true, 7];
var acc = [1, 2];

Tests:

spred
var other = [ ...acc, ...params ]
concat
var other = acc.concat(params);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spred
concat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 11_2_1) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/88.0.4324.182 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 88 on Mac OS X 11.2.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
spred	5915044.0 Ops/sec
concat	3592335.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for concatenating arrays: using the spread operator (`...`) and using the `concat()` method.

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared:

1. **Spread Operator (`...`)**: This approach uses the spread operator to expand an array into individual elements, which can then be concatenated with another array.
2. **`concat()` Method**: This approach uses the `concat()` method of the original array to create a new array that contains all elements from both arrays.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Spread Operator (`...`)**:
	+ Pros: More concise, efficient, and readable code. It's also more modern and widely adopted.
	+ Cons: Not supported in older browsers or environments that don't support ES6+ features.
* **`concat()` Method**:
	+ Pros: More compatible with older browsers and environments that don't support ES6+ features.
	+ Cons: Less concise, less efficient, and potentially slower than the spread operator.

**Library Usage**

There is no explicit library usage in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the `concat()` method uses the underlying JavaScript engine to concatenate arrays, which may involve additional overhead or memory allocation.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

The benchmark uses ES6+ features, specifically the spread operator (`...`). This feature was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and has since become widely adopted. The benchmark assumes that the test environment supports this feature.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to support older browsers or environments that don't support ES6+ features, you could consider using alternative approaches:

* **Array.prototype.push()**: You can use `push()` to add elements to an array and then create a new array with the desired length.
* **Array.from()**: If you're targeting modern browsers, you can use `Array.from()` to create a new array from an iterable source.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may be less efficient or more verbose than using the spread operator or `concat()` method.

Related benchmarks:

test1 array concat vs spred 3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: spred vs concat

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

spred

concat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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