Benchmark: set-immutablejs-vs-plain

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/immutable/3.8.2/immutable.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/immutability-helper@2.7.0/index.min.js"></script>

Tests:

plain
const obj = {}; for(i=0;i<100000;i++){ obj[i] = 'some long string which will need to be copied'; }
immutablejs
const obj = Immutable.Map(); for(i=0;i<100000;i++){ obj.set(i, 'some long string which will need to be copied'); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
plain
immutablejs

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing two approaches to creating an immutable object: using plain JavaScript (`plain`) and using Immutable.js (`immutablejs`).

**Options compared**

There are two options compared:

1. **Plain JavaScript**: This approach creates a mutable object using the `const obj = {}` syntax and then populates it with 100,000 key-value pairs using a loop.
2. **Immutable.js**: This approach uses the Immutable.js library to create an immutable map (`Immutable.Map()`) and sets 100,000 key-value pairs using the `set()` method.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

1. **Plain JavaScript**
	* Pros:
		+ Native support in most browsers
		+ Lighter overhead due to no external library dependencies
	* Cons:
		+ Mutable objects can lead to unexpected behavior when shared among multiple variables or functions
		+ String concatenation in loops can be slower than using immutable data structures
2. **Immutable.js**
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a higher level of abstraction and safety, reducing the risk of mutable object-related bugs
		+ Optimized performance for complex data structures like maps
	* Cons:
		+ Additional library dependency adds overhead
		+ May have a steeper learning curve due to its unique API

**Library and syntax**

The Immutable.js library is used to create immutable data structures. Specifically, the `Immutable.Map()` constructor creates an immutable map.

The test uses a JavaScript syntax feature called "block scope" (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to define the script preparation code for each test case. This feature allows us to write multiple scripts within the same file without polluting the global namespace.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between plain JavaScript and Immutable.js, consider the following factors:

* **Performance**: If you're working with complex data structures or need high performance, Immutable.js might be a better choice.
* **Development time**: If you prioritize ease of development and are willing to add an external library dependency, plain JavaScript might be sufficient.
* **Safety**: If you want to ensure the safety and immutability of your data structures, Immutable.js is a good option.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for creating immutable data structures in JavaScript include:

1. **Lodash immutability helpers**: Similar to Immutable.js, but part of the Lodash library.
2. **Mocha**: A testing framework that provides built-in support for immutable data structures.
3. **TypeScript**: A statically typed language that encourages immutable data structures and can be used with JavaScript libraries like Immutable.js.

In conclusion, the benchmark tests the performance of plain JavaScript vs. Immutable.js for creating an immutable object. The results show that Immutable.js outperforms plain JavaScript in this specific test case. When choosing between these approaches, consider your project's requirements, performance needs, and personal preference for library dependencies.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_14_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.130 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Mac OS X 10.14.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
plain	368.9 Ops/sec
immutablejs	486.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

set-immutablejs-vs-plain (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: plain vs immutablejs

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

plain

immutablejs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):