Benchmark: asjdkhfgasdukyfgasdkufghjasdjhfgasjfhgasdfasjhdgkcf

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 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is essential, and MeasuringThat.net provides an excellent platform for doing so. I'll break down the provided benchmark definitions, explain what's being tested, and discuss the pros and cons of different approaches.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided `Benchmark Definition` JSON contains a single field: `"Name"`, which is set to a random string. This field seems unnecessary and might be used for identification purposes only.

Each individual test case has two fields:

* `"Benchmark Definition"`: A string representing the JavaScript code snippet that defines the benchmark.
* `"Test Name"`: The name of the test, which in this case are "Array.prototype.concat" and "spread operator".

**What's being tested?**

The provided test cases measure the performance differences between:

1. **Array.prototype.concat**: Using the traditional concatenation method (`concat()`) vs...
2. **Spread operator**: Using the spread operator (`...`) to expand an array.

**Options compared**

In this case, there are only two options: traditional concatenation and the spread operator.

Pros of each approach:

* Traditional concatenation:
	+ Well-established and widely supported.
	+ Can be more efficient for small arrays due to caching optimizations in older browsers.
* Spread operator:
	+ Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) for improved performance and conciseness.
	+ Often preferred for new development, but may have slower execution times for very large arrays.

Cons of each approach:

* Traditional concatenation:
	+ Can lead to poor cache behavior, resulting in slower execution times due to repeated array allocations.
	+ May not work as expected in older browsers that don't support the spread operator.
* Spread operator:
	+ Requires support for ES6 features, which might be a limitation on some older browsers or environments.

**Library usage**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definitions. However, if you're using libraries like Lodash or Array.prototype methods that rely on these operations, keep in mind that library-specific optimizations might affect benchmark results.

**Special JS features/syntax**

The `spread operator` uses a syntax feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which is widely supported by modern browsers. However, if you're targeting very old browsers or environments, this might not be compatible.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to explore other approaches, consider the following:

* Using `Array.prototype.slice()` or `Array.prototype.push()` instead of concatenation.
* Implementing a custom, optimized concat function for large arrays.
* Experimenting with alternative array methods like `Flat()` and `Flatten()` (ES2019+).

Keep in mind that benchmark results might vary depending on the specific JavaScript engine, browser version, and system configuration used.

In summary, the provided benchmarks measure the performance differences between traditional concatenation and the spread operator. While traditional concatenation is well-established, the spread operator offers improved conciseness and potential performance benefits for new development.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 16 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.prototype.concat	27279562.0 Ops/sec
spread operator	456233248.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

asjdkhfgasdukyfgasdkufghjasdjhfgasjfhgasdfasjhdgkcf (version: 0)

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

Created: 2 years 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 26 days ago):