Benchmark: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator (w/out jQuery)

Tests:

Array.prototype.concat
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = [ 1, 2 ].concat(params);
spread operator
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ] var other = [ 1, 2, ...params ]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.concat
spread operator

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for concatenating arrays in JavaScript:

1. `Array.prototype.concat()`
2. The new ES6 spread operator (`...`)

The benchmark aims to measure which approach performs better, with a focus on modern JavaScript engines.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of the following two options:

* `Array.prototype.concat()`: A traditional method for concatenating arrays in JavaScript.
* The new ES6 spread operator (`...`): A syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 that allows for more concise array creation and manipulation.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`Array.prototype.concat()`**
	* Pros:
		+ Wide support across older browsers and versions of JavaScript.
		+ Easy to understand and implement.
	* Cons:
		+ Can be slower than the spread operator due to the overhead of creating a new array object.
2. **The new ES6 spread operator (`...`)**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and expressive syntax, making code easier to read and maintain.
		+ Often faster than `concat()` due to its optimized implementation in modern JavaScript engines.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires support for the ES6 standard, which may not be present in older browsers or environments.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark does not use any libraries beyond those provided by JavaScript itself. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript engines and browsers have optimized implementations of the spread operator that can further improve performance.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The test cases demonstrate the use of the spread operator (`...`). This syntax is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and allows for more concise array creation and manipulation. The `concat()` method, on the other hand, has been part of JavaScript for much longer.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to concatenating arrays, you could consider:

1. Using a library like Lodash, which provides a `concat` function with various options and optimizations.
2. Implementing your own array concatenation function using techniques like merging arrays into new objects or using specialized data structures.
3. Using other array methods, such as `push()`, `splice()`, or `slice()`, to concatenate arrays.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not offer significant performance improvements over the built-in `concat()` method and the spread operator.

In summary, the benchmark provides a simple yet effective way to compare the performance of two common array concatenation methods in JavaScript: `Array.prototype.concat()` and the new ES6 spread operator (`...`).

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/113.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 113 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.prototype.concat	12363722.0 Ops/sec
spread operator	54192868.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator (w/out jQuery) (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.concat vs spread operator

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.concat

spread operator

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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