Benchmark: map: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var randomArray = Array.apply(null, Array(100)).map(function() {
	return Math.round(Math.random() * 1000);
});

// Underscore was loaded last, so this saves an instance of underscore and resets _ to it's previous value (lodash).
var _underscore = _.noConflict();
// This saves an instance of lodash and resets _ to it's previous value (undefined).
var _lodash = _.noConflict();

Tests:

Native
var array2 = randomArray.map(function (value, index) { return value * 2 })
Underscore
var array2 = _underscore.map(randomArray, function (value, index) { return value * 2 })
Lodash
var array2 = _lodash.map(randomArray, function (value, index) { return value * 2 })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Underscore
Lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/131.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Lodash

897K/s

Underscore

398K/s

Native

196K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Lodash	897,238 Ops/sec
Underscore	398,433 Ops/sec
Native	196,131 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and its options.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing three JavaScript libraries: Lodash, Underscore.js, and the native JavaScript implementation (without any additional libraries). Specifically, they are comparing the performance of these three implementations when performing a `map` operation on an array.

**Options being compared**

The options being compared are:

1. **Native JavaScript**: The built-in JavaScript `map` function, which is implemented in the JavaScript engine.
2. **Underscore.js**: A popular utility library that provides functional programming helpers, including the `map` function.
3. **Lodash**: Another popular utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions, including the `map` function.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each option:

1. **Native JavaScript**:
	* Pros: Fastest execution time due to its native implementation.
	* Cons: May not be as flexible or powerful as other libraries.
2. **Underscore.js**:
	* Pros: Provides a more functional programming style, which can lead to more concise code.
	* Cons: May have slower execution times compared to native JavaScript.
3. **Lodash**:
	* Pros: Offers a wide range of utility functions, including `map`, which can be useful in many situations.
	* Cons: May have slower execution times compared to native JavaScript and Underscore.js.

**Library descriptions**

1. **Underscore.js**: Developed by Jeremy Ashkenas, Underscore.js is a small and lightweight library that provides functional programming helpers for working with arrays, objects, and functions. The `map` function in Underscore.js applies a given function to each element of an array, returning a new array with the results.
2. **Lodash**: Developed by Isaac Schankman et al., Lodash is a comprehensive utility library that provides over 120 functions for working with arrays, objects, and more. The `map` function in Lodash applies a given function to each element of an array, returning a new array with the results.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None mentioned explicitly in the provided benchmark definitions.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative JavaScript libraries that offer mapping functionality, some popular options include:

1. **Array.prototype.map()**: The built-in `map` function in modern JavaScript environments.
2. **Preact**: A lightweight library that provides a virtual DOM and a set of utility functions, including `map`.
3. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a comprehensive set of utilities, including `map`.

Keep in mind that the performance differences between these alternatives may vary depending on the specific use case and environment.

**Benchmark preparation**

The benchmark prepares an array with 100 random integers using `Array.apply(null, Array(100)).map()`. This is used as input for the three different implementations of the `map` function: native JavaScript, Underscore.js, and Lodash.

map: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Native vs Underscore vs Lodash`

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Native

Underscore

Lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

map: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Native

Underscore

Lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Native vs Underscore vs Lodash`