Benchmark: Negative precision floor: Lodash vs Math.floor #2

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.7.11/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function getRandomInt(max) {
  return Math.floor(Math.random() * Math.floor(max));
}

var arr = [];
for(var i = 0; i < 1000; i++){
  arr.push({value:getRandomInt(100)});
}

Tests:

_.floor
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) _.floor(arr[i], -2);
Math.floor
for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) Math.floor(arr[i] * 100) / 100;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.floor
Math.floor

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Context**

The test is comparing two approaches: using `Math.floor` (the built-in JavaScript function) versus using the `_floor` function from the Lodash library. The test case generates an array of random integers with a value between 0 and 100, and then applies each approach to this array.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Math.floor**: This is the built-in JavaScript function that returns the largest integer less than or equal to a given number.
2. **_.floor` (Lodash)**: This is a utility function from the Lodash library that performs a similar operation as `Math.floor`, but with more flexibility and options.

**Pros and Cons**

**Math.floor**:

Pros:

* Fast execution, since it's a built-in function.
* Simple and easy to understand.

Cons:

* Limited control over rounding behavior (e.g., precision).
* May not work correctly for certain edge cases or non-integer inputs.

**_.floor` (Lodash)**:

Pros:

* Provides more control over rounding behavior, including options for precision and rounding modes.
* Can handle non-integer inputs and edge cases more robustly.

Cons:

* Slower execution compared to `Math.floor`, since it involves additional logic and checks.
* Requires the Lodash library to be included in the project.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a collection of functional programming helpers, including array and number utilities like `_floor`. The `_floor` function is part of this library and offers more flexibility and options compared to `Math.floor`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to `Math.floor`, other options might include:

* `Number.EPSILON`: This is a property that represents the smallest positive value that can be added or subtracted from 1.0 without changing its value.
* Custom rounding functions: You could create your own custom rounding function using JavaScript's built-in arithmetic operations and conditional statements.

In summary, this benchmark compares two approaches for rounding numbers in JavaScript: `Math.floor` (the built-in function) versus the `_floor` function from Lodash (a utility library). The test highlights the pros and cons of each approach, with `Math.floor` offering fast execution but limited control over rounding behavior, while `_floor` provides more flexibility and options at the cost of slower execution.

Related benchmarks:

Negative precision floor: Lodash vs Math.floor #2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.floor vs Math.floor

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.floor

Math.floor

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):