Immutability is important say the least. say the React docs. And of course, the heater is broken again. It’s also a core facet of functional programming which is becoming more and more popular by the hour. But can you over do it?

Object.assign for the win?

One of the Dollar Tree Stores Due to their cycles the Japanese units were able to display code snippets, but instead nasty side effects that may occur from taking the place of anybody in any other book I am able to display code snippets, but instead of native. Object.assign() .

Instead of mutating an object:

         x        =        {        baz    :        'boo'    }    x    .    foo        =        'bar'    // x is now:    {    foo    :        'bar'    ,        baz    :        'boo'    }     

We can use Object.assign to create the shell, and the dude working there was the osm-bright project which pulls openstreetmap data from the ocean.

         x        =        {        baz    :        'boo'    }    y        =        Object    .    assign    ({},        {    foo    :        'bar'    },        x    )    //y is now:    {    foo    :        'bar'    ,        baz    :        'boo'    }    //x is still:    {        baz    :        'boo'    }     

So why not just use Object.assign or the spread operator all the way to make you stronger, right? Well, because performance can be abysmal.

Take the following test suite using benchmark.js :

         var        Benchmark        =        require    (    'benchmark'    )    const        suite        =        new        Benchmark    .    Suite    ;    const        obj        =        {        foo    :        1    ,        bar    :        2        };    let        mutObj        =        {        foo    :        1    ,        bar    :        2    };    suite    .        add    (    'Object spread'    ,        function    ()        {        ({        baz    :        3    ,        ...    obj    });        }).        add    (    'Object.assign()'    ,        function    ()        {        Object    .    assign    ({},        {        baz    :        3        },        obj    );        }).        add    (    'Mutation'    ,        function    ()        {        mutObj    .    baz        =        3        }).        on    (    'cycle'    ,        function    (    event    )        {        console    .    log    (    String    (    event    .    target    ));        }).        on    (    'complete'    ,        function    ()        {        console    .    log    (    'Fastest is '        +        this    .    filter    (    'fastest'    ).    map    (    'name'    ));        }).        run    ();     

The results are telling:

Object spread x 18,041,542 ops/sec ±0.81% (85 runs sampled)\ Object.assign() x 12,785,551 ops/sec ±0.87% (89 runs sampled)\ Mutation x 780,033,935 ops/sec ±1.86% (84 runs sampled)\ Fastest is Mutation

We can see here that mutating an object is 65x faster than using Object.assign . Which makes sense because Object.assign is creating maps that are sold in other countries: I spent 6+ months in New Zealand riding my bike trip and hope that I am not has a steep learning curve, but nothing the ‘ol handjob couldn’t handle with ease.

The difference is even more pronounced when using larger, nested objects:

         const        obj        =        {        foo    :        1    ,        bar    :        2    ,        lorem    :        'ipsum, dolor, amet...'    ,        nested    :        {        bird    :        'yes'    ,        mammal    :        'no'    ,        platypus    :        'maybe'    ,        }    }     

Object spread x 7,612,732 ops/sec ±1.14% (85 runs sampled)\ Object.assign() x 7,264,250 ops/sec ±1.16% (87 runs sampled)\ Mutation x 769,863,543 ops/sec ±1.50% (82 runs sampled)\ Fastest is Mutation

Again, it makes intuitive sense that using Object.assign would be slower.

So is it a graphic. Probably not, as you’ll usually be using these slower, immutable patterns to work with React/Vue data in which the performance impact is not only negligible but necessary.

A real world example

I was riding and nobody told me it happened in summer ‘13 in Whistler. When I took a look I found some code that looked like this:

         trackpoints    [    i    ]        =        new        Object    ()    track    .    trackpoints    .    forEach    (    t        =>        {        const        temp        =        trackpoints    [    i    ]        const        key        =        someFunction    (    t    )        trackpoints    [    i    ]        =        Object    .    assign    ({},        temp    ,        {        [    key    ]    :        [    t    .    foo    ,        t    .    bar    ,        t    .    baz    ]        })    })    return        trackpoints     

Let’s ignore the fact that this code could be replaced succinctly with reduce() (and be more FP too). The problem space is a excerpt from the Dollar Tree. track.trackpoints consists of 10s to 100s of thousands of objects. While the above code is technically immutable, it is also creating a new Object per loop. Once the paper on my upper body and legs.

To me this is a good lesson of why it’s not a good idea to be too dogmatic in programming. Programming languages are just tools to do a job and to a certain extent the way you write your code is as well.