Benchmark: Lodash vs Ramda 0.27.0

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.27.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

  var data = R.range(1, 10000);
  
  function isOdd(num) {
    return num % 2 === 1;
  }
  
  function square(num) {
    return num * num;
  }
  
  function lessThanThreeDigits(num) {
    return num.toString().length < 3;
  }

Tests:

Lodash
var result = _.chain(data) .map(item => item.counter) .map(square) .filter(lessThanThreeDigits) .value();
Ramda without relying on currying or composition
var result = R.filter( lessThanThreeDigits, R.map(square, R.pluck('counter', data)) );
Ramda with currying and composition
var result = R.pipe( R.pluck('counter'), R.map(square), R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits) )(data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Ramda without relying on currying or composition
Ramda with currying and composition

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 the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares the performance of Lodash and Ramda, two popular JavaScript libraries for functional programming.

**Options compared:**

Two main approaches are being compared:

1. **Lodash**: The `_.chain()` method is used to chain together multiple functions. In this case, it's used to map each element in the `data` array to its counter value, square the result, filter out numbers with less than three digits, and finally retrieve the filtered values.
2. **Ramda without currying or composition**: Ramda's `filter()` function is used directly on the `map()` result of squaring the elements' counters in the `data` array. This approach avoids using functional programming principles like currying and composition.
3. **Ramda with currying and composition**: Ramda's `pipe()` function is used to compose multiple functions together: `pluck('counter')`, `map(square)`, and `filter(lessThanThreeDigits)`. This approach takes advantage of Ramda's functional programming capabilities.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros:
		- Uses a well-established and widely-used library.
		- Easy to read and understand for developers familiar with Lodash.
	+ Cons:
		- May introduce additional overhead due to the need to create a chain of functions.
* **Ramda without currying or composition**:
	+ Pros:
		- Avoids potential overhead associated with functional programming.
		- May be faster since it uses fewer function calls.
	+ Cons:
		- Less readable and maintainable than using functional programming principles.
		- May not be as efficient due to the direct use of `filter()` on a potentially large array.
* **Ramda with currying and composition**:
	+ Pros:
		- Takes advantage of Ramda's functional programming capabilities, making it more expressive and concise.
		- Can be faster since it uses a pipeline of functions that can be optimized together.
	+ Cons:
		- May require additional time to learn and understand the currying and composition concepts.

**Library:**

* **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript library for functional programming, providing a wide range of utility functions. Its `chain()` method is used in this benchmark to chain together multiple functions.
* **Ramda**: Another popular JavaScript library for functional programming, offering a more concise and expressive way of working with data. It's used here with its `filter()`, `map()`, `pipe()`, and other higher-order functions.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided code snippet. However, it's worth noting that JavaScript features like closures, prototypes, and async/await are not mentioned either. The focus is on functional programming concepts and the performance comparison between Lodash and Ramda.

**Alternatives:**

* Other JavaScript libraries for functional programming include:
	+ **Immutable.js**: Provides immutable data structures and a range of functions for working with them.
	+ **Purescript**: A statically typed, purely functional programming language that compiles to JavaScript.
* For performance-critical code, developers may also consider using languages like C++ or Rust, which can offer better performance due to their compilation to native machine code.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs Ramda 0.27.0 (version: 0)

For those who think speed is somehow the be-all and end-all, behold.

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Ramda without relying on currying or composition vs Ramda with currying and composition

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Ramda without relying on currying or composition

Ramda with currying and composition

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):