Benchmark: Lodash vs plain - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var users = 'joey'

Tests:

lodash
_.startsWith(users, 'jo')
plain
users.startsWith('jo')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
plain

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 on MeasureThat.net!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test comparing two approaches: using Lodash (a popular utility library) and using plain JavaScript. The test consists of two individual test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

A benchmark definition is a string that describes the operation to be performed. In this case, there are two benchmark definitions:

1. `_.startsWith(users, 'jo')` (Lodash approach)
2. `users.startsWith('jo')` (plain JavaScript approach)

These benchmark definitions are simple string comparison operations. The first one uses Lodash's `startsWith` function, which is a utility function for checking if a string starts with a specified value. The second one uses the built-in `startsWith` method of the String prototype in plain JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches being compared are:

1. **Lodash approach**: Using Lodash's `startsWith` function, which provides a more concise and expressive way to perform string comparisons.
2. **Plain JavaScript approach**: Using the built-in `startsWith` method of the String prototype, which is a fundamental part of the JavaScript language.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Lodash Approach:**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Provides a more expressive way to perform string comparisons
* Often leads to faster execution due to optimized C++ implementation

Cons:

* Adds an external dependency (Lodash library)
* May increase overhead due to loading the Lodash library

**Plain JavaScript Approach:**

Pros:

* No external dependencies required
* Fast and lightweight

Cons:

* Code may be less concise and more verbose
* May require more explicit configuration or optimizations for optimal performance

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The `startsWith` function is just one example of the many useful utilities provided by Lodash.

In this benchmark test, using Lodash's `startsWith` function allows for a more concise and expressive way to perform the string comparison operation, which may lead to faster execution. However, it also adds an external dependency (Lodash library) that may increase overhead due to loading the library.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark test. The tests only use standard JavaScript syntax and built-in functions like `startsWith`.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for similar string comparison operations, here are a few options:

* Using the `RegExp` object: You can use regular expressions to perform string comparisons, which may be more flexible but also more complex.
* Implementing your own string comparison function: You can implement your own string comparison function using bitwise operations or other low-level techniques, which may be faster but also more error-prone.

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on the specific use case and requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs plain (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs plain

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

plain

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):