Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash flatmap 4.17.21
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash.flatMap vs native
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var x = [1,2,3] Array.prototype.flatMap = function(f) { return [].concat(...this.map(f)) }
Tests:
lodash.flatMap
_.flatMap(x,x => [x-1, x, x+1])
native
x.flatMap(x => [x-1, x, x+1])
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash.flatMap
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):
Let's break down what is being tested in this benchmark. The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two approaches to implementing the `flatMap` method on an array: using Lodash (a popular utility library) and writing the implementation from scratch (also known as "native"). **Options Compared** 1. **Lodash `flatMap`**: This approach uses the existing `flatMap` method provided by the Lodash library, a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various helper functions for common tasks. 2. **Native Implementation**: This approach involves writing the `flatMap` method from scratch using standard JavaScript syntax and features. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Lodash `flatMap`**: * Pros: Lodash is widely used, well-maintained, and optimized for performance. Using an existing implementation can reduce development time and minimize errors. * Cons: The user needs to include the Lodash library in their project, which may add additional complexity and size to the codebase. 2. **Native Implementation**: * Pros: Writing from scratch allows developers to understand the underlying mechanics of the `flatMap` method, which can lead to better performance and customization options. It also eliminates any potential dependencies on external libraries. * Cons: Implementing the `flatMap` method from scratch requires more development effort, may introduce errors or bugs, and might not be as efficient as the optimized Lodash implementation. **Library - Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various helper functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation, string processing, and object management. The `flatMap` method is part of this library, which helps to simplify the implementation by providing a well-tested and optimized function. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There is no mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax in the provided benchmark definition. **Other Alternatives** If you don't want to use Lodash or write a native implementation, other alternatives for implementing `flatMap` include: 1. Using the built-in `map()` and `concat()` methods: `Array.prototype.flatMap = function(f) { return this.map(f).concat(); }` 2. Implementing a custom array iterator: This approach would require a deeper understanding of JavaScript iterators and their interactions with arrays. 3. Using a different library or framework that provides an optimized `flatMap` method, such as Underscore.js or Ramda. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, complexity, and learning curves compared to the Lodash implementation.
Related benchmarks:
lodash flatmap
lodash flatmap vs Vanilla flatmap
lodash flatmap 2
hmmmmhmmm
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?