Benchmark: Delete vs destructure for object 2

Tests:

Delete
const obj = { height: 500, width: 300, _dasgdsa: '321321', onActive: function() { return false; }, onClick: function() {}, hasKey: false, elementRef: { element: {}, children: [] }, hint: 'bla-bla-bla', isEnabled: true, isVisible: true, className: 'box', addChild: function() { return true; }, accKey: 'dasdadasdasd#132132121dsadaf#easedada', }; const obj2 = { ...obj }; ['height', 'width', '_dasgdsa', 'onActive', 'onClick', 'hasKey', 'elementRef', 'hint', 'isEnabled', 'isVisible'].forEach(prop => delete obj2[prop]);
Destructure
const obj = { height: 500, width: 300, _dasgdsa: '321321', onActive: function() { return false; }, onClick: function() {}, hasKey: false, elementRef: { element: {}, children: [] }, hint: 'bla-bla-bla', isEnabled: true, isVisible: true, className: 'box', addChild: function() { return true; }, accKey: 'dasdadasdasd#132132121dsadaf#easedada', }; const { height, width, _dasgdsa, onActive, onClick, hasKey, elementRef, hint, isEnabled, isVisible, ...obj2 } = obj;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Delete
Destructure

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.0.1 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Delete	7374701.0 Ops/sec
Destructure	7463463.5 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark you've provided is testing two different approaches for handling properties of a JavaScript object: using the `delete` operator versus using object destructuring. Here’s a breakdown of each approach and the considerations surrounding them.

### 1. **Using `delete` Operator**

- **Test Overview**: 
  The test case using the `delete` operator involves creating an object `obj` with multiple properties and then creating a copy of this object, `obj2`, where specific properties are removed using the `delete` operator.
  
- **Pros**:
  - The `delete` operator is straightforward and explicit. It clearly indicates that a property is being removed from an object.
  - It can be useful when you need to remove properties dynamically or conditionally at runtime.

- **Cons**:
  - The `delete` operator can lead to performance issues, especially in cases where the object is being frequently modified, as it can interfere with JavaScript's optimization processes (like hidden classes in V8).
  - When a property is deleted, the object’s property lookup will generally degrade from a fast hidden class to a slow dictionary mode, which can affect the performance of further property accesses.

### 2. **Using Object Destructuring**

- **Test Overview**: 
  This test case uses object destructuring to create a new object `obj2` that includes all properties from `obj` except for those explicitly destructured. The remaining properties are gathered into `obj2`.

- **Pros**:
  - Object destructuring is syntactically concise and can lead to cleaner code, especially when you want to work with a reduced set of properties.
  - It gives you direct access to the required properties without modifying the original object, which is good for maintaining immutability in functional programming paradigms.
  - Destructuring can allow for better performance, as it does not alter the structure of the existing object, thus avoiding the pitfalls associated with the `delete` operator.

- **Cons**:
  - Destructuring may become complex with deep objects or if many properties need to be excluded.
  - It requires knowledge of the property names at the time of destructuring, which can be limiting if the properties are dynamic or not known in advance.

### Other Considerations

- **Performance**: According to your benchmark results, destructuring has a slight performance advantage over deletion; it executed approximately 7463463.5 times per second compared to the delete approach at 7374701.0 times per second. This margin, while not vast, suggests that destructuring can be preferable for operations involving frequent property access or modifications.

- **Context of Use**: The choice between these two methods can depend on the particular use case. For instance, if you need to conditionally remove properties from objects in an application where performance is critical, destructuring may provide a slight edge and is generally considered a best practice due to its readability and immutability.

### Alternatives

- **Spread Operator**: 
  Another alternative to analyze is using the spread operator in conjunction with destructuring. For instance: 
  ```javascript
  const obj2 = { ...obj, ...otherProps };
  ```
  Here, you can control which properties are included in the final object, but you'd need to manage the inclusion/exclusion of properties explicitly.

- **Functional Programming**: 
  Libraries such as Lodash offer methods like `omit` that allow for property removal without mutating the original object. 
  ```javascript
  const obj2 = _.omit(obj, ['height', 'width', '_dasgdsa', 'onActive', 'onClick', 'hasKey', 'elementRef', 'hint', 'isEnabled', 'isVisible']);
  ```
  This approach can be advantageous when dealing with complex transformations in functional programming styles.

In conclusion, both methods of handling object properties have their use cases; understanding their trade-offs enables software engineers to choose the most suitable approach for their specific requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Delete vs destructure for object 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Delete vs Destructure

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Delete

Destructure

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 2 months ago):