Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash _.map vs native map true version
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
warm up vs native vs _.map
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var array = [{id: 'a'}, {id: 'c'}, {id: 'b'}]
Tests:
warm up
array.map(a => console.log(a.id))
native
array.map(a => console.log(a.id))
_.map
_.map(array, a => console.log(a.id))
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
warm up
native
_.map
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 dive into the world of microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested on this particular benchmark. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of three approaches: 1. **Lodash's `_map` function**: This is a popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript. 2. **Native JavaScript `map` method**: This is the built-in array method that allows iterating over an array using a callback function. **Options being compared** The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches when: * Using Lodash's `_map` function * Using the native JavaScript `map` method These are the primary options being compared, and both have their own pros and cons: **Lodash's `_map` function:** Pros: * Provides a higher-level abstraction for functional programming, making code more concise and readable. * Often includes additional features like caching and memoization that can improve performance. Cons: * Adds an extra layer of complexity due to the need to import and initialize the Lodash library. * May introduce additional overhead due to the JavaScript interpreter's behavior when dealing with external libraries. **Native JavaScript `map` method:** Pros: * Is a lightweight, built-in function that doesn't require any additional imports or setup. * Can provide good performance since it's implemented in native code. Cons: * Requires more manual code management, as developers need to define the callback function and handle edge cases manually. **Library (Lodash) and its purpose** Lodash is a popular JavaScript library for functional programming that provides a wide range of utility functions. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_map` function is used to perform the mapping operation on an array. The library also includes other useful functions like `forEach`, `reduce`, and many more. **Special JS feature or syntax** This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond the standard JavaScript language. However, it does rely on modern JavaScript capabilities like ES6-style arrow functions (`a => console.log(a.id)`). **Other alternatives** If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to mapping arrays in JavaScript, here are a few options: 1. **`forEach` method**: While not as concise as the `map` method, using `forEach` can be an alternative approach for iterating over an array. 2. **`reduce` method**: This method can also be used to transform an array by applying a callback function to each element and accumulating the results. 3. **Manual loops with `for` or `while`**: For those who prefer a more low-level, manual approach, using traditional `for` loops or `while` loops can achieve the same result. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics and code readability trade-offs compared to the `map` method.
Related benchmarks:
array.map vs _.map
lodash _.map vs native map
native map vs lodash map on large array
Array Map Vs Lodash Map (1)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?