Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Native clone

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

var arr1 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }

var arr3 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

Tests:

Native
arr2.slice(0)
Lodash.js clone
_.clone(arr2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash.js clone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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 explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using native JavaScript (`arr2.slice(0)`) and cloning an array using Lodash.js (`_.clone(arr2)`).

**Array Cloning Approaches**

There are three array creation approaches:

1.  **Native Approach**: `var arr = []` followed by `for (var i = 0; i <= maxN; i++) { arr.push(i); }`, where `maxN` is a large number (100,000, 10,000,000, or 100,000,000).
2.  **Lodash.js Approach**: Using the Lodash.js library to clone an array: `_ = _.clone(arr2)`.
3.  **Native Clone Approach**: Similar to the native approach but with a `arr.clone()` method (not available in JavaScript).

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of the following options:

*   Native cloning using `slice()` or `concat()`
*   Using Lodash.js for array cloning (`_.clone()`)

**Pros and Cons:**

*   **Native Approach**:
    *   Pros:
        +   Lightweight
        +   No dependency on external libraries
    *   Cons:
        +   Can be slower due to the use of `slice()` or `concat()`
        +   Requires manual memory management (avoiding unnecessary array allocations)
*   **Lodash.js Approach**:
    *   Pros:
        +   Convenient and concise syntax
        +   Optimized for performance by using native JavaScript implementations under the hood
    *   Cons:
        +   Adds an external dependency to the project

**Library: Lodash.js**

Lodash.js is a popular JavaScript library that provides a wide range of functional programming utilities, including array manipulation. The `_.clone()` function creates a deep copy of an array, which can be useful in scenarios where you need to preserve the original data structure.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested here. The benchmark focuses on the performance difference between two common array cloning approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to clone an array, consider:

*   Using `Array.prototype.map()` and `Array.prototype.slice()`: `arr2.map(x => x).slice(0)`
*   Using a custom implementation: `var clonedArr = []; for (var i = 0; i < arr2.length; i++) { clonedArr.push(arr2[i]); }`
*   Using a library like Immutable.js, which provides a more robust and efficient way to work with immutable data structures.

Keep in mind that the performance difference between these approaches may vary depending on your specific use case and JavaScript engine.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.js vs Native clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash.js clone

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash.js clone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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