Benchmark: Compare Lodash and JS rand

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
var sum = 0;

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * max);
}

function sumJS(parameters) { 
    parameters.forEach((n) => sum += getRandomInt(n));
}

function sumLodash(parameters) { 
    _.forEach(parameters, (n) => sum += getRandomInt(n));
}

Tests:

JS sum
sumJS(array)
Lodash sum
sumLodash(array)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JS sum
Lodash sum

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 and explore what's being tested in this specific benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares two functions: `sumJS` and `sumLodash`. Both functions are designed to calculate the sum of an array of integers using the `getRandomInt` function, which generates random numbers between 1 and a given maximum value.

**Comparison Options**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Native JavaScript Implementation (sumJS)**: This is the native JavaScript implementation that uses the built-in `Math.random()` function to generate random numbers.
2. **Lodash Implementation (sumLodash)**: This implementation uses the popular Lodash library, which provides a convenient way to perform common tasks, including generating random numbers.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Native JavaScript Implementation (sumJS)**:
	+ Pros: Typically faster than external libraries due to reduced overhead.
	+ Cons: May be less readable or maintainable for complex logic.
* **Lodash Implementation (sumLodash)**:
	+ Pros: Can provide a more concise and readable way to perform common tasks, such as generating random numbers.
	+ Cons: Introduces an additional dependency (the Lodash library) that may slow down the benchmark.

**Other Considerations**

The `getRandomInt` function is used in both implementations to generate random numbers. This function is a built-in JavaScript function and does not require any external libraries.

**Library Used (Lodash)**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a dependency for the `sumLodash` implementation. Lodash provides a convenient way to perform common tasks, such as iterating over arrays and performing mathematical operations. The `_.forEach` method is used in the `sumLodash` function to iterate over the array of integers.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Alternative Implementations**

Other possible implementations that could be tested include:

* Using a different library for random number generation, such as MathJS.
* Implementing a custom random number generator using a different algorithm.
* Using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler to optimize the native JavaScript implementation.
* Using a parallel or concurrent execution approach to improve performance.

These alternative implementations could provide valuable insights into how different approaches can affect performance and readability.

Related benchmarks:

Compare Lodash and JS rand (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JS sum vs Lodash sum

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JS sum

Lodash sum

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):