Benchmark: test cloneObject

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

test e verifica
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
test e verifica cloneObj
function clone(obj) { let clone = {}; if (typeof obj === 'object') { try { clone = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj)); } catch (e) { console.warn(e); } } return clone; } myCopy = clone(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
test e verifica
test e verifica cloneObj

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 dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore the provided JSON benchmark definition.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark named "test cloneObject". This benchmark tests the performance of two different approaches to create a deep copy of an object: using the Lodash library (`_.cloneDeep`) and a custom function (`clone`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared in this benchmark:

1. **Lodash Library**: The `_.cloneDeep` method is used to create a deep copy of the source object, which should be an object or an array.
2. **Custom Function**: A custom `clone` function is defined to create a deep copy of the source object using the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` trick.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief analysis of each approach:

* **Lodash Library (`_.cloneDeep`)**:
	+ Pros: Built-in, well-tested, and widely used. It handles complex object graphs with ease.
	+ Cons: Adds an external dependency (the Lodash library), which may not be desirable for all projects.
* **Custom Function (`clone`)**:
	+ Pros: Avoids adding an external dependency, allowing for more control over the deep copy process.
	+ Cons: Requires manual implementation and handling of edge cases, which can increase development time.

**Library Description**

The Lodash library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, object creation, and more. In this benchmark, `_.cloneDeep` is used to create a deep copy of an object or an array.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

In the custom function (`clone`), there's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being showcased. It simply uses the `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))` trick to create a deep copy of the source object. This technique is not specific to any particular version of JavaScript and is widely used in many libraries and applications.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to creating deep copies, here are a few options:

* **Array.prototype.slice() + Object.assign()**: You can use `Array.prototype.slice()` to create a shallow copy of an array and then use `Object.assign()` to merge the copied array with another object.
* **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))** (alternative implementation): While not recommended due to performance issues, you can implement your own deep copying function using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))`.
* **For...of loop + JSON.stringify()**: You can use a `for...of` loop to iterate over the object's properties and construct a new object with the same properties.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as efficient or straightforward as the Lodash library or the custom function used in this benchmark.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
test e verifica	1391212.5 Ops/sec
test e verifica cloneObj	1115048.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

test cloneObject (version: 0)

test

Comparing performance of: test e verifica vs test e verifica cloneObj

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

test e verifica

test e verifica cloneObj

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):