Benchmark: Array.prototype.slice vs spread operator fixed sdgertgwertwert23452345wert2345

Tests:

Array.prototype.slice
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ]; var other = params.slice();
spread operator
var params = [ "hello", true, 7 ] var other = [ ...params ]

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.slice
spread operator

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Purpose**

The main goal of this benchmark is to compare two approaches for creating a copy of an array: the traditional `Array.prototype.slice()` method and the new ES6 spread operator (`[ ...params ]`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Traditional `Array.prototype.slice()`**: This method creates a shallow copy of the original array by returning a new array object with a reference to the same internal buffer as the original array.
2. **Spread Operator `[ ...params ]`**: This operator creates a shallow copy of the original array by spreading its elements into a new array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Traditional `Array.prototype.slice()`**:
	+ Pros: Fast, efficient, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: Can be less intuitive for developers who aren't familiar with it. It also creates a shallow copy, which may not be desirable if the original array contains mutable objects.
* **Spread Operator `[ ...params ]`**:
	+ Pros: More intuitive for modern JavaScript developers, as it's a more concise and expressive way to create copies of arrays. It also creates a shallow copy, just like `slice()`.
	+ Cons: May be less efficient than `slice()` in some cases, especially for large arrays.

**Library/Functionality Used**

There is no specific library used in this benchmark. The comparison is only between two built-in JavaScript methods (`Array.prototype.slice()` and the spread operator).

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The spread operator is a relatively recent addition to JavaScript (introduced in ECMAScript 2015), making it a good target for benchmarking.

**Other Considerations**

Other factors that might affect the performance of these two approaches include:

* Array size: Larger arrays may favor `slice()` due to its efficient allocation of memory.
* Array type: If the array contains mutable objects, using `slice()` instead of the spread operator may be a better choice.
* Browser/Platform support: Some older browsers or platforms might not support the spread operator.

**Alternative Benchmarking Approaches**

Other alternatives for benchmarking this comparison could include:

* Using a different programming language (e.g., C#, Java) that has similar array manipulation capabilities.
* Comparing the performance of these two approaches on smaller arrays, where the overhead of creating a new array is more significant.
* Adding additional factors to the benchmark, such as:
	+ Creating multiple copies of the original array and comparing their sizes.

However, for this specific comparison, the JavaScript community and Chrome's Vivaldi browser are targeted, making these two approaches suitable for benchmarking.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/74.0.3729.134 Safari/537.36 Vivaldi/2.5.1525.41

Browser/OS: Chrome 74 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.prototype.slice	45132532.0 Ops/sec
spread operator	39529312.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.slice vs spread operator fixed sdgertgwertwert23452345wert2345 (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional slice() method

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

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.slice

spread operator

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):