The benchmark provided assesses four different methods for creating a deep copy of an object in JavaScript. Each method is tested in terms of its performance, measured by executions per second.

Comparison of Approaches

1. Lodash CloneDeep (myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);):

   • Library: Lodash is a widely used utility library in JavaScript that provides various functions for common programming tasks like manipulating and copying objects.
   • Pros:
     • Simple and straightforward API.
     • Handles various data types well, including arrays, objects, and nested structures.
   • Cons:
     • Overhead of importing the entire Lodash library, which can increase the overall bundle size if only using a function or two.
     • Slightly slower compared to some native options.

2. JSON Clone (myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));):

   • Pros:
     • Utilizes native JavaScript functions, meaning no additional libraries are required.
     • Simple to understand and write.
   • Cons:
     • Only works for serializable objects, which means it cannot handle functions, Date objects, undefined, or circular references.
     • Potentially inefficient for larger objects as it serializes and parses the entire object.

3. Recursive Deep Copy (myCopy = recursiveDeepCopy(MyObject);):

   • Custom Function: A user-defined function that implements a recursive approach to copying objects deeply.
   • Pros:
     • Tailored to specific needs, allowing for more control over how certain data types are handled.
     • Can be optimized further, depending on the specific requirements of the objects being copied.
   • Cons:
     • More verbose and possibly less optimized compared to built-in or library options.
     • May require more careful handling of edge cases (e.g., circular references).

4. Structured Clone (myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);):

   • Pros:
     • Built-in method specifically designed for deep cloning, capable of handling various types, including Date, Map, Set, ArrayBuffer, and Blob.
     • Avoids the limitations of the JSON method since it can copy complex data types.
   • Cons:
     • Might not be supported in older browsers, though it is increasingly becoming part of the standard.
     • May have performance overhead compared to a simple recursive function for straightforward objects.

Benchmark Results

The latest benchmark results indicate the following performance in terms of executions per second:

1. Recursive Deep Copy: 2,202,011.25
2. Lodash CloneDeep: 616,432.44
3. JSON Clone: 524,355.38
4. Structured Clone: 242,811.30

Considerations

• Performance Needs: Depending on the size and complexity of the object being copied, developers might choose a faster option for performance-critical applications. The recursive method performed significantly better than the others in this benchmark, making it potentially a better choice for frequent deep copying operations.
• Object Complexity: If the objects contain non-serializable types, the JSON method will not be suitable. In such cases, using either Lodash or the structured clone method would be preferable.
• Library Dependency: Using Lodash adds an external dependency, which might be a consideration, especially for projects aiming to minimize external libraries.
• Implementation Time: For quick implementations without needing extensive object copying capabilities, JSON cloning can be an easy and straightforward choice.

Alternatives

Alternatives to the methods tested include:

• Shallow Copy: Using Object.assign or the spread operator ({...obj}) for shallow copying.
• Other Libraries: Utilizing libraries like Rambda or Immer, which offer their own methods for deep cloning or state management strategies.
• Custom Implementations: Crafting specialized copy functions tailored for unique types and application requirements.

Understanding these options allows developers to choose the most appropriate method for their specific application needs.