Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash fp vs pure js
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
pure js vs lodash fp
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash-fp/0.10.4/lodash-fp.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30];
Tests:
pure js
var pure = numbers.filter(num => num % 2 ===0).map(num=> ({ result: num }))
lodash fp
_.flow(_.map(num => ({ result: num })), _.filter(num => num %2 ===0))(numbers)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
pure js
lodash fp
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 break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, along with the pros and cons of each approach. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is comparing two approaches: using pure JavaScript (without any libraries) versus using the Lodash functional programming library (`lodash-fp`). **Script Preparation Code** This code creates an array `numbers` containing 30 numbers from 1 to 30. This will be used as input for both test cases. **Html Preparation Code** This line includes a script tag that loads the `lodash-fp.min.js` file, which is required for the Lodash functional programming library. **Individual Test Cases** There are two test cases: 1. **"pure js"`: This test case uses pure JavaScript to filter and map the `numbers` array. * Pros: + No external dependencies or libraries are used. + Can be more lightweight and efficient for small-scale applications. * Cons: + May not be as readable or maintainable due to its simplicity. 2. **"lodash fp"`: This test case uses the Lodash functional programming library (`lodash-fp`) to filter and map the `numbers` array. * Pros: + Provides a more concise and expressive way of writing code, thanks to the functional programming paradigm. * Cons: + Requires an external dependency (the `lodash-fp` library), which may add overhead or complexity. **Library: Lodash Functional Programming Library (`lodash-fp`)** Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, object transformation, and more. The functional programming version (`_`) of Lodash (`lodash-fp`) is a subset of the full library, optimized for use with functional programming techniques. **Other Considerations** When choosing between pure JavaScript and `lodash fp`, consider the trade-offs: * Readability: If you value readability and maintainability, `lodash fp` might be a better choice due to its concise syntax. * Performance: For small-scale applications or when performance is critical, pure JavaScript might be a better option since it doesn't introduce any external dependencies. **Alternatives** Other alternatives to consider for array filtering and mapping in pure JavaScript include: * Using the `Array.prototype.filter()` and `Array.prototype.map()` methods directly (like in the "pure js" test case). * Utilizing other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality, such as Ramda or Loom. Keep in mind that these alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of readability, performance, or complexity.
Related benchmarks:
Last Lodash Test
lodash toInteger vs parseInt
lodash isnubmer vs typeof
array includes lodash vs vanilla JS
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?