Benchmark: Lodash vs Lodash FP

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.4/lodash.fp.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:


var array =  ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z']
var reducer = (r, x) => r + x

Tests:

Lodash FP
_.reduce(reducer, '')(array)
Native
array.reduce(reducer, '')

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 14 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 14 runs

Native

3.0M/s

Lodash FP

1.1M/s

Fastest: Native (2.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Native: 3,039,361 ops/sec
• Lodash FP: 1,053,124 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash FP
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:139.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/139.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 139 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Native

6.6M/s

Lodash FP

788K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Native	6,556,433 Ops/sec
Lodash FP	788,044 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Test**

The test compares the performance of two approaches to perform a reduction operation on an array:

1. **Native**: Using the built-in `reduce()` method of JavaScript arrays, with a custom reducer function (`reducer`) that takes two arguments: the accumulator (`r`) and the current element (`x`).
2. **Lodash FP (Functional Programming)**: Using the `lodash.fp.reduce()` method from the Lodash library, which is designed for functional programming.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests the performance of both approaches on a large array of 26 elements. The test measures the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each approach.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Native**: Using the built-in `reduce()` method has several advantages:
	+ It's more efficient, as it's implemented in native code.
	+ It's more reliable, as it follows standard JavaScript behavior.
	+ However, it may have less readable or maintainable code, depending on the implementation details.
* **Lodash FP**: Using Lodash's `reduce()` method has some advantages:
	+ It provides a functional programming approach that can be more concise and expressive in some cases.
	+ It offers additional features, such as memoization and recursion, which might be useful for certain use cases.
	However, it also has some drawbacks:
	+ It relies on an external library (Lodash), which may introduce additional overhead or dependencies.
	+ The performance might be slower due to the added abstraction layer.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for tasks such as:

* String manipulation
* Array manipulation
* Object manipulation
* Function utility functions

In this benchmark, Lodash's `reduce()` method with functional programming (FP) support is used to perform the reduction operation.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript and Lodash library functions.

**Alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:

* Using other functional programming libraries, such as Ramda or Array.prototype.reduce() with a custom reducer function.
* Implementing the reduction operation manually using loops or recursive functions.
* Using other array methods, such as `map()` and `forEach()` in combination.

Keep in mind that each alternative approach may have its own pros and cons, and may not be suitable for every use case.

Lodash vs Lodash FP (version: 13)

Comparing performance of: `Lodash FP vs Native`

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Lodash FP

Native

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 14 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 14 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Lodash vs Lodash FP (version: 13)

Comparing performance of: Lodash FP vs Native

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Lodash FP

Native

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 14 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 14 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Lodash FP vs Native`