Benchmark: Lodash inRange vs JS inRange

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var inRange = (num, rangeStart, rangeEnd = 0) => (rangeStart < num && num < rangeEnd) || (rangeEnd < num && num < rangeStart);

Tests:

Lodash inRange
_.inRange(5, 0, 50); _.inRange(500, 0, 50); _.inRange(500, 0, 500); _.inRange(445, 0, 450); _.inRange(25, 0, 150); _.inRange(0, 0, 5); _.inRange(1, 0, 1); _.inRange(2, 0, 2);
JS inRange
inRange(5, 0, 50); inRange(500, 0, 50); inRange(500, 0, 500); inRange(445, 0, 450); inRange(25, 0, 150); inRange(0, 0, 5); inRange(1, 0, 1); inRange(2, 0, 2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash inRange
JS inRange

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash inRange	1069852.1 Ops/sec
JS inRange	2597914.5 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two different implementations of the `inRange` function: one using Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library, and another implemented directly in plain JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests the following options:

1. **Lodash `inRange`**: This is a pre-built implementation of the `inRange` function provided by the Lodash library.
2. **Plain JavaScript `inRange`**: This is an implementation of the `inRange` function written from scratch in plain JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons**

### Lodash `inRange`

Pros:

* **Maintained**: Lodash is a well-maintained and widely-used library, ensuring that the `inRange` implementation is reliable.
* **Optimized**: The implementation is likely to be optimized for performance, as it's part of a larger library.

Cons:

* **Additional dependency**: The benchmark requires the Lodash library to be included, which adds an extra dependency and potential overhead.
* **Size overhead**: Including the entire Lodash library might result in a smaller footprint compared to a custom implementation.

### Plain JavaScript `inRange`

Pros:

* **No additional dependencies**: This implementation doesn't require any external libraries, making it a more lightweight option.
* **Customizable**: The benchmark can be easily modified or extended by modifying the plain JavaScript implementation.

Cons:

* **Development effort**: Creating an optimized and reliable implementation from scratch requires significant development effort.
* **Less maintainable**: A custom implementation might not receive the same level of maintenance and updates as a pre-built library like Lodash.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for common tasks, such as string manipulation, array processing, and more. The `inRange` function is part of this library and is used in the benchmark to compare its performance with the plain JavaScript implementation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in the provided code snippets.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash inRange vs JS inRange (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash inRange vs JS inRange

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash inRange

JS inRange

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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