Let's break down the test cases and compare the options used.

Test Case 1: Lodash cloneDeep

The benchmark tests the performance of _.cloneDeep() from Lodash, which creates a deep copy of an object. The function takes an object as input and returns a new object that is a copy of the original object, including all nested objects and arrays.

Pros:

• .cloneDeep() is a specialized function that only clones the specified object, making it more efficient than creating a full-fledged copy.
• It handles complex data structures, such as arrays and objects with circular references, which can be challenging for simple cloning functions.

Cons:

• Lodash is an external library that needs to be included in the test environment, adding overhead.
• The function's name suggests that it clones only deep copies of objects, but it actually creates a new object with all the properties and values from the original object.

Test Case 2: JSON stringify

The benchmark tests the performance of JSON.stringify() which converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string. This is done by taking an object as input and returning a string representation of that object, which can be useful for logging or serialization purposes.

Pros:

• JSON.stringify() is a built-in function in JavaScript, eliminating the need for external libraries.
• It's a simple and straightforward way to convert objects to strings.

Cons:

• The resulting JSON string does not preserve the original data structure or nested properties of the object.
• The output can be verbose and include unnecessary characters like double quotes and whitespace.

Test Case 3: structuredClone

The benchmark tests the performance of structuredClone() which creates a deep copy of an object, similar to .cloneDeep(). However, it is designed for use with WebAssembly (WASM) and provides additional features like handling cyclic references.

Pros:

• Similar pros as .cloneDeep() above.
• Specifically designed for WASM and provides better support for cyclic references compared to JSON.stringify().

Cons:

• Like .cloneDeep(), it's an external library that needs to be included in the test environment, adding overhead.
• Not widely adopted or well-supported outside of the WASM ecosystem.

Comparison

All three options have their trade-offs. If you need a deep copy of an object with nested properties and want to preserve data structures, _.cloneDeep() (Lodash) might be the best choice. However, it comes with the overhead of including an external library.

JSON.stringify(), on the other hand, provides a lightweight solution that converts objects to strings but loses their original data structure and nesting. It's suitable for logging or serialization purposes where the resulting string is more important than the original object.

For use cases involving WASM, structuredClone() offers better support for cyclic references compared to .cloneDeep(). However, it also requires an external library and might not be as widely adopted or well-supported outside of this specific context.

Other Alternatives

• For simple cloning purposes, you could implement a basic recursive function that creates a new object with all properties from the original object.
• Another alternative is to use Object.assign() or spread operator ({...obj}) to create a shallow copy of an object. However, these methods may not work correctly for nested objects or cyclic references.

In summary, the choice between .cloneDeep(), JSON.stringify(), and structuredClone() depends on your specific requirements, including the need for preserving data structures, handling cyclic references, and performance considerations.