Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Spread Lodash vs Native JS HAB
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
NativeJS vs Lodash
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var names = ["first", "middle", "last", "suffix"];
Tests:
NativeJS
let [firstName, ...otherNames] = names;
Lodash
const firstName = _.first(names); const otherNames = _.tail(names);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
NativeJS
Lodash
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):
I'll break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches: Native JavaScript (HAB) and Lodash. **Native JS (HAB)** * The script preparation code initializes an array `names` with four elements. * The test case uses destructuring assignment to extract the first element from the array. This is a native JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). * The test name is "NativeJS". **Lodash** * The benchmark definition includes a script tag that loads Lodash version 4.17.5. * The test case uses Lodash's `first` and `tail` functions to extract the first element from the array, similar to the Native JS approach. * The test name is "Lodash". **Comparison and Pros/Cons** The two approaches differ in how they handle array destructuring: 1. **Native JavaScript (HAB)**: * Pros: Does not require any external library or imports. * Cons: Requires a modern browser that supports ES6 syntax (at least Chrome 87). 2. **Lodash**: * Pros: Works on older browsers that don't support ES6 syntax. * Cons: Requires an additional library import, which might introduce overhead. In terms of performance, the results indicate that Native JS (HAB) outperforms Lodash in this specific test case, likely due to the simplicity and directness of the native JavaScript approach. **Library and Purpose** Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript. It provides a collection of high-order functions that can be used to simplify code and improve performance. In this benchmark, Lodash's `first` and `tail` functions are used to extract elements from an array. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** The test case uses ES6 syntax (destructuring assignment) for the Native JS approach, which is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. This syntax allows for more concise and expressive code. However, it requires modern browsers that support this syntax to run. Overall, the benchmark provides a good comparison between two approaches: Native JavaScript (HAB) with ES6 syntax and Lodash. The results suggest that Native JS might be a better choice when performance is critical and older browsers are not supported.
Related benchmarks:
Spread Operator vs Lodash
Spread Operator vs Lodash Small Array
Spread Operator vs Lodash CloneDeep
Spread Operator vs Lodash (v4.17.21)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?