Benchmark: Math.floor() vs _.floor() vs static _.floor()

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var num = 123.4567
var floorStatic = _.floor

Tests:

Math.floor()
Math.floor(num)
_.floor()
_.floor(num)
Static _.floor()
floorStatic(num)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.floor()
_.floor()
Static _.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.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**
The benchmark compares the performance of three approaches:

1. `Math.floor()`: a built-in JavaScript function for rounding down to the nearest integer.
2. `_.floor()` from Lodash: a utility function for rounding down numbers.
3. `floorStatic()`: a static method from Lodash, which is called like a function.

**Options Compared**

* Two approaches are compared at once (e.g., `Math.floor()` vs _.floor()) and three approaches are compared simultaneously (`Math.floor()` vs _.floor()` vs floorStatic()`).
* Each approach has multiple executions per second, indicating how fast they can process numbers.
* The benchmark runs on a specific device platform (Mobile) and operating system (Android).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Built-in `Math.floor()`**: Pros:
	+ Native JavaScript function with low overhead.
	+ Wide support across browsers and platforms.
Cons:
	+ May not be optimized for performance, especially on mobile devices.
* _.floor() from Lodash: Pros:
	+ Provides a standardized rounding function across different libraries and frameworks.
	+ Easy to use and understand.
Cons:
	+ Requires an external library (Lodash), which may introduce additional overhead.
	+ May not be as optimized as native functions for certain use cases.
* floorStatic(): Pros:
	+ Similar to _.floor() but with a static method, potentially reducing overhead.
Cons:
	+ Still requires an external library (Lodash) and may have similar performance characteristics.

**Library: Lodash**
Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as data manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, _.floor() is used to compare its performance with native `Math.floor()`.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:** None mentioned in the provided code.

**Alternative Approaches**
Other rounding algorithms or approaches might be considered, such as:

* Using a fixed-point arithmetic library (e.g., IEEE 754)
* Implementing a custom rounding algorithm
* Using a different JavaScript function (e.g., `Number.EPSILON` for relative precision)

However, these alternatives are not currently being tested in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Math.floor() vs _.floor() vs static _.floor() (version: 0)

Math.floor() vs _.floor() vs static _.floor()

Comparing performance of: Math.floor() vs _.floor() vs Static _.floor()

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Math.floor()

_.floor()

Static _.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):