Benchmark: function over header

Script Preparation code:

const lol = {
        hej: 'hej'
    }

Tests:

spead
const lol = { hej: 'hej' } const hej1={...lol}
func
const lol = { hej: 'hej' } const lolman = ()=>lol const hej2 ={...lolman}

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
spead
func

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/100.0.4896.127 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 100 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
spead	72968792.0 Ops/sec
func	36780164.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark for measuring the performance difference between two approaches: spreading an object directly (`const hej1={...lol}`) versus using a function to create a new object with the same properties (`const lolman = ()=>lol` and then `const hej2 ={...lolman}`).

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Direct Spreading**: Using the spread operator (`{...lol}`) to create a new object with all the properties of `lol`.
2. **Function-based Creation**: Creating a new function that returns the original object (`const lolman = ()=>lol`) and then spreading its result to create a new object.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Direct Spreading**:
	* Pros: Efficient, concise, and easy to read.
	* Cons: May not be as flexible or reusable, as it only works with objects that can be spread (i.e., objects with enumerable properties).
2. **Function-based Creation**:
	* Pros: More flexible and reusable, as functions can be used to create new objects with arbitrary logic.
	* Cons: Less efficient, as a function is created and then executed to produce the result.

**Library**

There doesn't seem to be any external library being used in this benchmark. The tests are self-contained JavaScript code snippets.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The tests don't use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would affect their performance. However, it's worth noting that using spread operators (`{...}`) is a relatively recent feature (introduced in ES6) and may not be supported in older browsers or environments.

**Other Alternatives**

For this specific benchmark, the two main alternatives are:

1. **Using the `Object.assign()` method**: This would involve creating an object literal with `lol` as its value and then passing it to `Object.assign()`. However, `Object.assign()` has performance overhead due to its dynamic nature.
2. **Using a library like Lodash** (although not explicitly mentioned in this benchmark): Lodash provides utility functions for working with objects, including `_.assign()` which could be used to create a new object from another.

In conclusion, the provided benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between two approaches to creating new objects: direct spreading and function-based creation. The test results will help developers understand the trade-offs between these approaches in terms of efficiency and flexibility.

Related benchmarks:

function over header (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: spead vs func

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

spead

func

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):