Gist d6bacd4ce0d5835b801ba028f9b1c81b

100%

Gist d6bacd4ce0d5835b801ba028f9b1c81b

✓ Published0🌍 Public

Last edited Sep 19, 2016

Created on Sep 18, 2016

This example benchmarks seven JavaScript object-cloning techniques using the `chuhai` benchmarking library, with `lodash`, `Object.assign`, and JSON methods. It compares operations per second for deep and shallow copies of 1,000 parsed CSV records fetched from a remote dataset. The visualization highlights relative performance differences through horizontal bar lengths, with the fastest method labeled explicitly. The code uses `babyparse` for CSV parsing and `platform` to report the runtime environment, while the benchmark logic is orchestrated via `suite.cb` and `s.bench` calls. Results are output as Markdown text, not rendered graphically.

AI-generated description

MIT Licensed

Similar vizzes

Loading thumbnail…

Gist e92adbf79e3256a0d3e222f140a0433b

This example visualizes the relative performance of 16 JavaScript event-emitter libraries across two benchmark scenarios, “emit objects” and “emit one parameter,” using the raw output of the benchmark runner. The data, drawn from a gist by Hypercubed, is rendered as a grouped horizontal bar chart where each bar’s length corresponds to operations per second (ops/sec), with libraries sorted by speed and the fastest highlighted. The chart uses a simple SVG-based custom layout (likely with d3-scale for axes and d3-array for sorting) rather than a high-level charting library, directly mapping the numeric values to pixel widths. The visualization does not show error margins or statistical significance, only the raw ops/sec values and the benchmark’s “Fastest is” annotation for each test.

HHypercubed

69% match

Loading thumbnail…

PowerArray benchmarks

This visualization benchmarks the performance of different `forEach` implementations across arrays and typed arrays, showing that native methods on standard arrays are slower than optimized libraries like lodash, underscore, and fast.js, while PowerArray’s custom method rivals them. The bar chart compares operations per second (ops/sec) for each tested scenario, sourced from a benchmark suite generated by Node.js’s `Benchmark` module. The code uses `Benchmark.Suite` to run trials on plain arrays, `Uint16Array`, and PowerArray instances, with libraries like `fast.js`, `underscore`, `lodash`, and native `Array.prototype.forEach` called directly or via `.call`. Data comes from the gist’s `Results.txt` output, and the visualization likely plots these numeric results to highlight performance gaps.

HHypercubed

67% match

Loading thumbnail…

Gist d51a566a307b428d98eaf3aa8d2a59a3

This example benchmarks JavaScript event emitter libraries across multiple test scenarios, including initialization, emitting with context, and emitting single or multiple values to one or more listeners. The code runs benchmark suites using `benchmark.js`, comparing libraries such as `EventEmitter3`, `MiniSignals`, `push-stream`, and `signal-lite`, and reports throughput in operations per second. It highlights the fastest performers per scenario, such as `push-stream` leading in the "emit with context" test. The visualization shows raw performance data from Node.js 6.2.1, rendered as plain-text tables with pass/fail assertions and timing summaries.

HHypercubed

64% match

Loading thumbnail…

globby - chuhai

This example compares the performance of two glob-matching libraries—the local `globby` fork and the upstream `globby` master—against `glob-stream`, using the `chuhai` and `ava` benchmarking suites. It shows raw operations per second for three pattern scenarios (negative globs and multiple positive globs) across async and sync APIs, with results from 10 runs each. The code directly invokes `globby.sync()`, `globby()`, and `glob-stream`'s `create()` to measure throughput, while the markdown output lists the fastest implementation per test. Data is generated from a temporary directory containing 500 files per subfolder, and the rendering is plain text from benchmark results.

HHypercubed

64% match

Loading thumbnail…

chuhai async

This example demonstrates how asynchronous timing errors in benchmark code can skew results, contrasting a correct benchmark with a buggy variant. The visualization, generated by the `chuhai` and `blue-tape` libraries, compares operations per second for `nextTick`, `setTimeout`, and `setImmediate`, alongside a synchronous `max` baseline. In the buggy version, shared variable mutations inside asynchronous callbacks produce incorrect factorial calculations, as shown by failed assertions. The rendered bar chart highlights performance differences, with `nextTick` fastest when correct, while the buggy results falsely elevate `setImmediate` due to the timing mistakes.

HHypercubed

62% match

Loading thumbnail…

PowerArray vs....

This example benchmarks the `forEach` method across multiple JavaScript libraries—native `Array.prototype.forEach`, `fast.js`, `underscore`, and `lodash`—applied to three data types: plain arrays, `Float32Array`, and a custom `PowerArray` class. It shows that native `forEach` on a plain array is the baseline, while `fast.js` and `underscore` achieve similar or better throughput on arrays, with `powerArray.forEach` leading all variants. The code uses `process.hrtime()` for high-resolution timing and computes operations per second from a 10-million-element dataset. Results highlight that typed arrays (`Float32Array`) generally slow down iteration, except with `lodash` and `underscore`, which still lag behind array-based calls.

HHypercubed

61% match

Loading thumbnail…

D3 Example

A horizontal bar chart compares the operations-per-second benchmark results of 10 JavaScript event-emitting libraries, sorted from fastest to slowest. Rendered as static SVG, the visualization uses D3.js (version 3.5.5) for scales, axes, and data binding, and d3-tip for tooltips that display exact values. The data comes from a CSV file. The x-axis uses SI-prefix formatting (replacing G with B), and the visualization is implemented via `d3.scale.linear`, `d3.scale.ordinal`, and `d3.svg.axis`.

CCurran Kelleher

61% match

Loading thumbnail…

An approach to deep cloning objects in JavaScript

This example shows a recursive approach to deep cloning plain JavaScript objects, where each nested object is duplicated rather than shared by reference. The code defines a `cloneDeep` function that iterates over an object’s own enumerable properties using `Object.entries`, checks whether each value is an object with `typeof value === 'object'`, and if so, calls itself recursively; otherwise, it assigns the primitive value directly. The visualization likely demonstrates this process step by step, perhaps animating the traversal of a sample object tree. However, the code explicitly notes it does not support arrays, converting them into object-like structures with numeric keys, as seen in the comment about `['foo', 'bar']` becoming `{0: 'foo', 1: 'bar'}`. No external libraries are used—only native JavaScript methods and operators.

115Dkatz

60% match