Benchmark: _.range versus native Array()

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var number = 500;
var sum;

Tests:

native
[...Array(number).keys()].forEach(n => { sum += n; })
lodash
_.range(number).forEach(n => { sum += n; })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native
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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark definition and test cases.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches to create an array of numbers:

1. **Native Array()**: The native approach uses the `Array()` constructor to create an array, like this: `[...Array(number).keys()]`. This method creates a new array with a length equal to the number variable.
2. **Lodash range wrapper (lodash)**: The Lodash approach uses the `_range()` function from the Lodash library to create an array, like this: `_.range(number).forEach(n => {\r\n  sum += n;\r\n})`. This method creates a new array with numbers from 0 to the specified number.

**Options compared**

The two approaches are being compared in terms of performance. The benchmark measures the execution time (in executions per second) for each approach.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Native Array()**:
	+ Pros:
		- Native code, which can be optimized by the JavaScript engine.
		- Typically faster than external libraries like Lodash.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more manual memory management (e.g., with `Array()`).
		- May not work well for very large arrays due to JavaScript's garbage collection limitations.
* **Lodash range wrapper**:
	+ Pros:
		- Easy to use and provides a convenient, readable API.
		- Often includes additional utility functions that can be useful.
	+ Cons:
		- External dependency (the Lodash library).
		- May incur overhead due to the library's initialization and garbage collection.

**Library:**

In this benchmark, the `lodash` library is used. The `_range()` function provided by Lodash creates an array of numbers from 0 to a specified number, similar to how `[...Array(number).keys()]` would create an array with numbers from 0 to `number`. However, the `_.range()` method is more efficient and takes care of creating the internal array internally.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript syntax.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to test alternative approaches, you could consider:

* Using `Array.from()` instead of `[...Array(number).keys()]` for the native approach.
* Using `Array.from()` and a generator function (e.g., using `Array.from()` with `GeneratorFunction`) for an iterative approach.
* Using a library like MathJax or Math.js, which provide more advanced mathematical functions.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as straightforward to implement or as efficient as the native array approach or Lodash's `_range()` function.

Related benchmarks:

_.range versus native Array() (version: 0)

native array builder vs lodash range wrapper

Comparing performance of: native vs lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

native

lodash

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):