Benchmark: includes - ramda vs native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/ramda@latest/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,97]

Tests:

ramda
R.includes(47,primes)
native
primes.includes(79)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ramda
native

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 benchmarking scenario.

**What is being tested?**

The test measures the performance difference between using the `includes()` method from the Ramda library (a functional programming library for JavaScript) versus the native implementation of the same method in JavaScript.

**Options compared:**

1. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a `includes()` function.
2. **Native**: The built-in `includes()` method in JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Ramda:**
Pros:

* Provides a consistent and predictable implementation across different browsers and environments.
* Can be more concise and expressive, especially for complex search operations.

Cons:

* Adds an additional dependency (the Ramda library) to the benchmarking scenario.
* May incur a performance overhead due to the library's abstraction layer.

**Native:**
Pros:

* Optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine.
* Typically includes additional optimizations and edge cases that may not be present in the Ramda implementation.

Cons:

* Performance can vary across different browsers and environments, depending on the specific engine and settings.
* May require more verbose code to achieve the same results.

**Library: Ramda**

Ramda is a popular functional programming library for JavaScript. It provides a set of higher-order functions (curry, map, filter, reduce) that can be composed together to create more complex operations. In this benchmark, Ramda's `includes()` function is used to search for an element in the `primes` array.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None mentioned**

The provided benchmarking scenario does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard JavaScript and Ramda.

**Other alternatives:**

If you want to test other approaches, you could consider:

* Using a different functional programming library (e.g., Lodash, Underscore.js) instead of Ramda.
* Implementing the `includes()` method from scratch using native JavaScript code.
* Comparing performance with other search algorithms (e.g., linear search, binary search).
* Testing with different input sizes or distributions.

Keep in mind that each alternative may introduce new variables and complexities to the benchmarking scenario.

Related benchmarks:

includes - ramda vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ramda vs native

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ramda

native

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):