Benchmark: LoDash map&unqiue vs Destructured - artifacts

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var allStaticArtifacts = [
  {
    id: 'a'
  },
  {
    id: 'b'
  },
  {
    id: 'c'
  },
  {
    id: 'd'
  }
]

var artifactsRegistry = {
  getDynamicDependenciesDependencies: (id) => [ `${id}_`]
};

var artifactUtils = {
  normalizeArtifactId: (id) => id
};

Tests:

lodash
const staticArtifactsDynamicDeps = _(allStaticArtifacts) .map(artifact => artifactsRegistry.getDynamicDependenciesDependencies(artifact.id) ) .flatten() .uniq(artifactUtils.normalizeArtifactId) .value();
custom
const staticArtifactsDynamicDeps_1 = allStaticArtifacts.reduce( (acc, artifact) => { return [ ...acc, ...artifactsRegistry.getDynamicDependenciesDependencies(artifact.id) ] }, [] ).reduce((() => { const visitedMap = {}; return (acc, current) => { const normalizedId = artifactUtils.normalizeArtifactId(current); if (visitedMap[normalizedId]) { return acc; } visitedMap[normalizedId] = true; return [ ...acc, current ] } })(), []);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
custom

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 dive into explaining the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to processing an array of static artifacts and their dynamic dependencies. The goal is to measure which approach is faster.

**Options Compared**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **LoDash (`_`) map, unique, and flatten**: This approach uses the popular LoDash library to perform the following operations:
	* `map`: applies a function to each element of the array (in this case, extracting the dynamic dependencies for each artifact).
	* `uniq`: removes duplicates from the resulting array.
	* `flatten`: flattens an array of arrays into a single array.
2. **Custom implementation**: This approach uses a custom reducer function to achieve similar results:
	* `reduce`: accumulates values in an array, reducing it to a single value (the final processed array).
	* `map` and `filter` are used internally to process the data.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **LoDash (`_`) approach**:
	* Pros:
		+ Well-established library with a large community.
		+ Easy to read and understand, thanks to its functional programming style.
		+ Reduces the risk of human error.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds external dependencies ( LoDash library).
		+ May not be as efficient as a custom implementation due to the overhead of parsing the LoDash code.
2. **Custom approach**:
	* Pros:
		+ No external dependencies, making it more lightweight and efficient.
		+ Allows for fine-grained control over the processing logic.
	* Cons:
		+ More difficult to read and understand, as it requires knowledge of functional programming concepts (e.g., `reduce`, `map`, `filter`).
		+ May introduce human error due to its custom implementation.

**Library: LoDash**

LoDash is a popular JavaScript library for functional programming. It provides a concise way to manipulate arrays and objects using a functional style. The `_` symbol represents the root object of the LoDash namespace, which contains various utility functions.

In this benchmark, LoDash is used to perform array operations, such as `map`, `uniq`, and `flatten`. These operations are designed to work with JavaScript arrays, allowing for efficient manipulation of data.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JS features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. However, the use of `_` notation from LoDash is a notable example of a functional programming pattern.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare these approaches might include:

* Using other popular JavaScript libraries (e.g., Lodash Alternatives) for array manipulation.
* Implementing a custom array processing function using native JavaScript methods (e.g., `forEach`, `map`, `filter`).
* Comparing different array data structures, such as objects or sets, instead of arrays.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require significant changes to the benchmark definition and test cases to accommodate the new approaches.

Related benchmarks:

LoDash map&unqiue vs Destructured - artifacts (version: 1)

LoDash map&unqiue vs Destructured

Comparing performance of: lodash vs custom

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

lodash

custom

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):