Benchmark: compare push with desttructuring

Script Preparation code:

var outArray  = []
var inArray = ['a', 'b', 'c']

Tests:

with just push
outArray.push (...inArray)
creating new with destructure
var newOut = [...inArray]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
with just push
creating new with destructure

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasurThat.net, which compares two approaches to performing array operations: using `Array.prototype.push()` and destructuring arrays with the spread operator (`[...]`).

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code initializes two empty arrays, `outArray` and `inArray`, which will be used in the test cases.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: There is no HTML preparation code provided, so we'll focus on the JavaScript aspects.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **"with just push"`**: This test case measures the performance of using `Array.prototype.push()` to add elements to an array.
	* Benchmark Definition: `outArray.push (...inArray)`
2. **"creating new with destructure"`**: This test case measures the performance of creating a new array by destructuring the original array with the spread operator (`[...]`).
	* Benchmark Definition: `var newOut = [...inArray]`

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Using `Array.prototype.push()`**: A traditional approach to adding elements to an array.
2. **Destructuring arrays with the spread operator**: A newer, more concise way of creating a new array by copying elements from another array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Using `Array.prototype.push()`**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported, easy to understand.
	+ Cons: May lead to performance issues for large arrays due to the need for repeated indexing and copying.
* **Destructuring arrays with the spread operator**:
	+ Pros: More concise, efficient, and modern syntax.
	+ Cons: Less widely supported in older browsers or JavaScript engines.

**Library and Special JS Features**

There are no libraries explicitly mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript engines (like V8) have optimized support for the spread operator (`[...]`).

If we were to consider special JavaScript features, we could mention:

* **Destructuring syntax**: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), this feature allows for concise array creation and other operations.
* **Array.prototype.push()**: A standard method on all arrays, widely supported across different browsers and engines.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare the performance of these two approaches might include:

1. Using `Array.prototype.concat()` instead of `push()`.
2. Creating a new array using `Array.from()` or `new Array(length)`.
3. Comparing performance between different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey).

Keep in mind that this is just a starting point for analysis and discussion. The actual results may vary depending on the specific browser, engine, and hardware being tested.

Hope this explanation helps!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/114.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 114 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
with just push	4912568.0 Ops/sec
creating new with destructure	22931112.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

compare push with desttructuring (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: with just push vs creating new with destructure

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

with just push

creating new with destructure

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):