Benchmark: testingCloneObject

Script Preparation code:

var bob = {
    name: "Bob",
    age: 32
};

Tests:

vanila
function cloneObject(obj) { if (obj === null || typeof obj !== 'object') { return obj; } var temp = obj.constructor(); // give temp the original obj's constructor for (var key in obj) { temp[key] = cloneObject(obj[key]); } return temp; } var bill = (cloneObject(bob));
JSON.parse
var bill2 = (JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(bob)));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
vanila
JSON.parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches for cloning an object in JavaScript:

1. **Vanilla Clone**: The first approach uses a custom `cloneObject` function to recursively clone the object.
2. **JSON.parse with stringify**: The second approach uses `JSON.parse` and `JSON.stringify` methods to clone the object.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options for cloning an object:

1. **Vanilla Clone**: A custom function that recursively clones the object using the original constructor and properties.
2. **JSON.parse with stringify**: Uses `JSON.parse` to parse the JSON representation of the object, and then uses `JSON.stringify` to create a new object with the same structure.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Vanilla Clone**

Pros:

* Native JavaScript implementation
* Can handle complex object structures
* May be faster for large objects

Cons:

* More code to write and maintain
* May not work correctly for all types of objects (e.g., arrays, functions)

**JSON.parse with stringify**

Pros:

* Simple and concise implementation
* Works well for most types of objects
* Fast and efficient

Cons:

* Uses extra memory to store the JSON representation
* May not be suitable for very large objects due to performance overhead

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the following factors:

* **Object complexity**: If you need to clone complex object structures, the vanilla clone approach may be more suitable.
* **Performance**: For simple clones, `JSON.parse with stringify` is often faster and more efficient.
* **Memory usage**: If memory is a concern, the vanilla clone approach may be more suitable due to its ability to handle large objects.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses the `JSON` object from the built-in JavaScript API. The `JSON.parse` and `JSON.stringify` methods are used to parse and generate JSON representations of the object.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. Both approaches rely on standard JavaScript features and data structures.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for cloning objects in JavaScript include:

* **Lodash's `cloneDeep` function**: A popular utility library that provides a robust implementation of deep cloning.
* **ES6's `Object.assign()` method with spread syntax**: Can be used to clone objects, but may not work correctly for all types of objects.

In summary, the benchmark compares two approaches for cloning objects in JavaScript: a custom vanilla clone function and the `JSON.parse with stringify` approach. Each has its pros and cons, and the choice depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as object complexity, performance, and memory usage.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/54.0.2840.59 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 54 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
vanila	3306327.2 Ops/sec
JSON.parse	705824.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

testingCloneObject (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanila vs JSON.parse

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

vanila

JSON.parse

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):