Let’s say I have an options variable and I want to set some default value.
What’s is the benefit / drawback of these two alternatives?
Using object spread
options = {...optionsDefault, ...options};
Or using Object.assign
options = Object.assign({}, optionsDefault, options);
This is the commit that made me wonder.
This isn't necessarily exhaustive.
options = {...optionsDefault, ...options};
If authoring code for execution in environments without native support, you may be able to just compile this syntax (as opposed to using a polyfill). (With Babel, for example.)
Less verbose.
When this answer was originally written, this was a proposal, not standardized. When using proposals consider what you'd do if you write code with it now and it doesn't get standardized or changes as it moves toward standardization. This has since been standardized in ES2018.
Literal, not dynamic.
Object.assign()options = Object.assign({}, optionsDefault, options);
Standardized.
Dynamic. Example:
var sources = [{a: "A"}, {b: "B"}, {c: "C"}];
options = Object.assign.apply(Object, [{}].concat(sources));
// or
options = Object.assign({}, ...sources);
This is the commit that made me wonder.
That's not directly related to what you're asking. That code wasn't using Object.assign(), it was using user code (object-assign) that does the same thing. They appear to be compiling that code with Babel (and bundling it with Webpack), which is what I was talking about: the syntax you can just compile. They apparently preferred that to having to include object-assign as a dependency that would go into their build.
For reference object rest/spread is finalised in ECMAScript 2018 as a stage 4. The proposal can be found here.
For the most part object reset and spread work the same way, the key difference is that spread defines properties, whilst Object.assign() sets them. This means Object.assign() triggers setters.
It's worth remembering that other than this, object rest/spread 1:1 maps to Object.assign() and acts differently to array (iterable) spread. For example, when spreading an array null values are spread. However using object spread null values are silently spread to nothing.
Array (Iterable) Spread Example
const x = [1, 2, null , 3];
const y = [...x, 4, 5];
const z = null;
console.log(y); // [1, 2, null, 3, 4, 5];
console.log([...z]); // TypeError
Object Spread Example
const x = null;
const y = {a: 1, b: 2};
const z = {...x, ...y};
console.log(z); //{a: 1, b: 2}
This is consistent with how Object.assign() would work, both silently exclude the null value with no error.
const x = null;
const y = {a: 1, b: 2};
const z = Object.assign({}, x, y);
console.log(z); //{a: 1, b: 2}
I think one big difference between the spread operator and Object.assign that doesn't seem to be mentioned in the current answers is that the spread operator will not copy the the source object’s prototype to the target object. If you want to add properties to an object and you don't want to change what instance it is of, then you will have to use Object.assign.
Edit: I've actually realised that my example is misleading. The spread operator desugars to Object.assign with the first parameter set to an empty object. In my code example below, I put error as the first parameter of the Object.assign call so the two are not equivalent. The first parameter of Object.assign is actually modified and then returned which is why it retains its prototype. I have added another example below:
const error = new Error();
error instanceof Error // true
const errorExtendedUsingSpread = {
...error,
...{
someValue: true
}
};
errorExtendedUsingSpread instanceof Error; // false
// What the spread operator desugars into
const errorExtendedUsingImmutableObjectAssign = Object.assign({}, error, {
someValue: true
});
errorExtendedUsingImmutableObjectAssign instanceof Error; // false
// The error object is modified and returned here so it keeps its prototypes
const errorExtendedUsingAssign = Object.assign(error, {
someValue: true
});
errorExtendedUsingAssign instanceof Error; // trueSee also: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-object-rest-spread/blob/master/Spread.md
I'd like to summarize status of the "spread object merge" ES feature, in browsers, and in the ecosystem via tools.
var x = { a: 1, b: 2 };
var y = { c: 3, d: 4, a: 5 };
var z = {...x, ...y};
console.log(z); // { a: 5, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4 }
Again: At time of writing this sample works without transpilation in Chrome (60+), Firefox Developer Edition (preview of Firefox 60), and Node (8.7+).
I'm writing this 2.5 years after the original question. But I had the very same question, and this is where Google sent me. I am a slave to SO's mission to improve the long tail.
Since this is an expansion of "array spread" syntax I found it very hard to google, and difficult to find in compatibility tables. The closest I could find is Kangax "property spread", but that test doesn't have two spreads in the same expression (not a merge). Also, the name in the proposals/drafts/browser status pages all use "property spread", but it looks to me like that was a "first principal" the community arrived at after the proposals to use spread syntax for "object merge". (Which might explain why it is so hard to google.) So I document my finding here so others can view, update, and compile links about this specific feature. I hope it catches on. Please help spread the news of it landing in the spec and in browsers.
Lastly, I would have added this info as a comment, but I couldn't edit them without breaking the authors' original intent. Specifically, I can't edit @ChillyPenguin's comment without it losing his intent to correct @RichardSchulte. But years later Richard turned out to be right (in my opinion). So I write this answer instead, hoping it will gain traction on the old answers eventually (might take years, but that's what the long tail effect is all about, after all).
As others have mentioned, at this moment of writing, Object.assign() requires a polyfill and object spread ... requires some transpiling (and perhaps a polyfill too) in order to work.
Consider this code:
// Babel wont touch this really, it will simply fail if Object.assign() is not supported in browser.
const objAss = { message: 'Hello you!' };
const newObjAss = Object.assign(objAss, { dev: true });
console.log(newObjAss);
// Babel will transpile with use to a helper function that first attempts to use Object.assign() and then falls back.
const objSpread = { message: 'Hello you!' };
const newObjSpread = {...objSpread, dev: true };
console.log(newObjSpread);
These both produce the same output.
Here is the output from Babel, to ES5:
var objAss = { message: 'Hello you!' };
var newObjAss = Object.assign(objAss, { dev: true });
console.log(newObjAss);
var _extends = Object.assign || function (target) { for (var i = 1; i < arguments.length; i++) { var source = arguments[i]; for (var key in source) { if (Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(source, key)) { target[key] = source[key]; } } } return target; };
var objSpread = { message: 'Hello you!' };
var newObjSpread = _extends({}, objSpread, { dev: true });
console.log(newObjSpread);
This is my understanding so far. Object.assign() is actually standardised, where as object spread ... is not yet. The only problem is browser support for the former and in future, the latter too.
Hope this helps.
NOTE: Spread is NOT just syntactic sugar around Object.assign. They operate much differently behind the scenes.
Object.assign applies setters to a new object, Spread does not. In addition, the object must be iterable.
Copy Use this if you need the value of the object as it is at this moment, and you don't want that value to reflect any changes made by other owners of the object.
Use it for creating a shallow copy of the object good practice to always set immutable properties to copy - because mutable versions can be passed into immutable properties, copy will ensure that you'll always be dealing with an immutable object
Assign Assign is somewhat the opposite to copy. Assign will generate a setter which assigns the value to the instance variable directly, rather than copying or retaining it. When calling the getter of an assign property, it returns a reference to the actual data.
The object spread operator (...) doesn't work in browsers, because it isn't part of any ES specification yet, just a proposal. The only option is to compile it with Babel (or something similar).
As you can see, it's just syntactic sugar over Object.assign({}).
As far as I can see, these are the important differences.
... for objects isn't standardized... protects you from accidentally mutating the object... will polyfill Object.assign in browsers without it... needs less code to express the same ideaOther answers are old, could not get a good answer.
Below example is for object literals, helps how both can complement each other, and how it cannot complement each other (therefore difference):
var obj1 = { a: 1, b: { b1: 1, b2: 'b2value', b3: 'b3value' } };
// overwrite parts of b key
var obj2 = {
b: {
...obj1.b,
b1: 2
}
};
var res2 = Object.assign({}, obj1, obj2); // b2,b3 keys still exist
document.write('res2: ', JSON.stringify (res2), '<br>');
// Output:
// res2: {"a":1,"b":{"b1":2,"b2":"b2value","b3":"b3value"}} // NOTE: b2,b3 still exists
// overwrite whole of b key
var obj3 = {
b: {
b1: 2
}
};
var res3 = Object.assign({}, obj1, obj3); // b2,b3 keys are lost
document.write('res3: ', JSON.stringify (res3), '<br>');
// Output:
// res3: {"a":1,"b":{"b1":2}} // NOTE: b2,b3 values are lost
Several more small examples here, also for array & object:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Spread_syntax
This is now part of ES6, thus is standardized, and is also documented on MDN: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Operators/Spread_operator
It's very convenient to use and makes a lot of sense alongside object destructuring.
The one remaining advantage listed above is the dynamic capabilities of Object.assign(), however this is as easy as spreading the array inside of a literal object. In the compiled babel output it uses exactly what is demonstrated with Object.assign()
So the correct answer would be to use object spread since it is now standardized, widely used (see react, redux, etc), is easy to use, and has all the features of Object.assign()
I'd like to add this simple example when you have to use Object.assign.
class SomeClass {
constructor() {
this.someValue = 'some value';
}
someMethod() {
console.log('some action');
}
}
const objectAssign = Object.assign(new SomeClass(), {});
objectAssign.someValue; // ok
objectAssign.someMethod(); // ok
const spread = {...new SomeClass()};
spread.someValue; // ok
spread.someMethod(); // there is no methods of SomeClass!
It can be not clear when you use JavaScript. But with TypeScript it is easier if you want to create instance of some class
const spread: SomeClass = {...new SomeClass()} // Error
