Benchmark: test lodash vs native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var max = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)

var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max; i++) { arr.push({value: 10}); }

Tests:

lodash
_.each(arr, function (element, index) { element.value = element.value * 2; });
native
for (const item of arr) { item.value = item.value *2; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents two benchmark test cases: one using the Lodash library and the other using native JavaScript.

**Options compared**

In this case, we have:

1. **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript library that provides a lot of useful functions for tasks like array manipulation, string processing, and more.
2. **Native JavaScript**: The built-in JavaScript engine, which executes the code without relying on external libraries.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

**Lodash:**

Pros:

* Easier to write concise and readable code, thanks to Lodash's extensive function library.
* Often results in faster execution times due to optimized native code generated by the browser.

Cons:

* Introduces an additional dependency, which can impact performance and security.
* May require additional setup and configuration for optimal results.

**Native JavaScript:**

Pros:

* No dependencies or setup required, making it easy to integrate into existing projects.
* Can provide better performance in some cases, as the code is executed directly by the browser's engine.

Cons:

* Often requires more verbose code, which can be less readable and maintainable.
* May not utilize optimized native code, resulting in slower execution times.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string processing, and more. The `_.each()` function used in the benchmark test case is an example of this. Lodash's purpose is to simplify common programming tasks by providing pre-written code snippets.

**JavaScript feature: For...of loop**

The "native" test case uses a **For-of loop**, which is a newer JavaScript syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). The `for...of` loop allows iterating over arrays or iterables using a more concise and readable syntax. It's a good example of how JavaScript has evolved to provide better performance and readability.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The script preparation code creates an array with 10 million elements, each containing a single property (`value`) initialized to 10. This is a common approach used in benchmarking to create large datasets for testing.

**Other alternatives**

If you want to explore alternative approaches or libraries, here are some options:

* **Underscore.js**: Another popular JavaScript library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.
* **ES6/ES7 features**: Using newer JavaScript features like `let` and `const`, arrow functions, or classes can also be experimented with for performance improvements.
* **Other benchmarking libraries**: Libraries like BenchmarkJS or micro-benchmark provide more advanced features and flexibility for creating custom benchmarks.

These alternatives might offer different trade-offs in terms of ease of use, performance, and readability.

Related benchmarks:

test lodash vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs native

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

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):