Benchmark: intersection - Ramda vs lodash vs ecma

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var groupA = [ 'a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'f'];
var groupB = ['b' , 'd', 'g', 'h', 'i'];

Tests:

Ramda
let ri = R.intersection(groupA, groupB); console.log(ri);
lodash
let li = _.intersection(groupA, groupB); console.log(li);
ecma
let ei = groupA.filter(x => groupB.includes(x)); console.log(ei);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
lodash
ecma

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.

Measuring different approaches to implement an intersection operation in JavaScript can be useful for benchmarking and optimizing performance.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test that compares three different approaches to implement an intersection operation:

1. Ramda (a functional programming library)
2. Lodash (a utility library with a vast array of functions)
3. ECMA standard (the built-in JavaScript syntax)

**Options Compared:**

* Ramda: uses the `R.intersection` function, which is a higher-order function that takes two arrays as arguments and returns an array containing only the elements common to both.
* Lodash: uses the `_intersection` function, which performs the same operation as above but is part of the Lodash utility library.
* ECMA standard: uses the `filter()` method in combination with the `includes()` method, which checks if an element is present in a given array.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach:**

1. **Ramda**:
	* Pros:
		+ High-performance implementation
		+ Robust type system and documentation
	* Cons:
		+ Additional dependency (library)
		+ Steeper learning curve due to functional programming concepts
2. **Lodash**:
	* Pros:
		+ Familiarity for developers already using Lodash
		+ Wide range of utility functions available
	* Cons:
		+ Additional dependency (library)
		+ Can lead to performance issues if not optimized correctly
3. **ECMA standard**:
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in, no additional dependencies required
		+ Familiarity for developers already working with JavaScript
	* Cons:
		+ May require more complex code due to the need to use `filter()` and `includes()`
		+ Performance may be slower compared to optimized library implementations

**Library Used:**

In this benchmark, both Ramda and Lodash are used as separate libraries that provide a function for implementing the intersection operation. The ECMA standard approach does not rely on any external library.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

The test case uses the `filter()` method in combination with the `includes()` method, which is part of the ES6 JavaScript syntax. This is a relatively modern feature that has been widely adopted by modern browsers and JavaScript engines.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you need an alternative to Ramda or Lodash, consider using other libraries that provide similar functionality, such as:

* **MooTools**: A comprehensive library with a range of utility functions, including intersection.
* **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library that includes an `intersection` function.

Keep in mind that the choice of alternative will depend on your specific requirements and preferences.

Related benchmarks:

intersection - Ramda vs lodash vs ecma (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs lodash vs ecma

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

lodash

ecma

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):