Benchmark: Spreading arguments

Tests:

with spreading
const foo = ({...args}) => {} const args = { arg1: 1, arg2: 2, arg3: 3 } foo({...args})
without spreading
const foo = ({...args}) => {} const args = { arg1: 1, arg2: 2, arg3: 3 } foo(args)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
with spreading
without spreading

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

The provided JSON represents two benchmark definitions, each with its own test case. We'll break down what's being tested and compare different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition**

A benchmark definition is a JSON object that contains information about the test. In this case, we have:

* `Name`: A descriptive name for the benchmark.
* `Description`: An optional description of the benchmark (not provided in this example).
* `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These fields are used to prepare the script and HTML code before running the benchmark.

In our case, both `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` are empty, indicating that no additional setup is required for these benchmarks.

**Test Cases**

We have two test cases:

1. **"with spreading"`: This test case uses the spread operator (`...`) to pass arguments to a function.
2. **"without spreading"`: This test case passes arguments directly to a function without using the spread operator.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Using the spread operator (`...`) to pass arguments to a function.
* Passing arguments directly to a function without using the spread operator.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Using the spread operator (with spreading)**:
	* Pros: Can be more readable, especially when working with objects or arrays as function arguments.
	* Cons: May introduce unnecessary copying of data if the original object or array is not modified, which can lead to performance overhead.
2. **Passing arguments directly (without spreading)**:
	* Pros: Avoids potential performance overhead introduced by using `...`, as it avoids creating a new copy of the data.
	* Cons: Can be less readable, especially when working with complex objects or arrays.

**Library usage**

None of the provided benchmark definitions use any external libraries. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript functions might rely on built-in library functionality (e.g., `Array.prototype.forEach()`). In this case, we're testing a basic function that takes an object or array as an argument, so there's no specific library usage to consider.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

The provided benchmark definitions use the spread operator (`...`), which is a JavaScript syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2018 (ES2018). This syntax allows for more concise and readable function calls when working with objects or arrays as arguments. If your JavaScript engine doesn't support ES2018, you might not be able to run these benchmarks.

**Other alternatives**

If MeasureThat.net provided alternative benchmark definitions, they might include:

* Different data structures (e.g., `Set`, `Map`, or `Date`) being passed to the function.
* Using asynchronous programming constructs like `Promise` or `async/await`.
* Implementing more complex functions with multiple arguments and return types.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely require changes to the benchmark definitions and test cases.

Now, when you run this benchmark on MeasureThat.net, you can see which approach (with spreading vs. without) performs better for a specific JavaScript engine and device platform!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 115 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
with spreading	3887067.8 Ops/sec
without spreading	7914815.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Spreading arguments (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: with spreading vs without spreading

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

with spreading

without spreading

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):