Benchmark: Lodash tail vs native slice(1)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var value = [30310, 100303, 3040494];

Tests:

Lodash tail
_.tail(value);
Native slice(1)
value.slice(1)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash tail
Native slice(1)

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash tail	127500984.0 Ops/sec
Native slice(1)	79441000.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON benchmark definition and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using Lodash's `tail` method and the native JavaScript `slice(1)` function. The test case uses a predefined array `value` with three elements.

**Options Compared**

* **Lodash `tail` method**: A utility function from the Lodash library that returns a new array containing all elements except the last one.
* **Native JavaScript `slice(1)` function**: A built-in function in JavaScript that creates a new array by copying a portion of an existing array, starting from the index 1.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash `tail` method**:
	+ Pros: Easier to read and maintain due to its expressive syntax. Can be more intuitive for developers who are familiar with Lodash.
	+ Cons: Requires the inclusion of the Lodash library in the test environment, which may introduce additional overhead. May not be as optimized as native code.
* **Native JavaScript `slice(1)` function**:
	+ Pros: Faster execution since it's a built-in function without any external dependencies. Optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine.
	+ Cons: More verbose syntax that requires understanding of array indexing and slicing.

**Library Used**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers, including array manipulation functions like `tail`.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

Neither of the approaches uses any special JavaScript features or syntax. Both are standard JavaScript concepts.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark assumes that the Lodash library is included in the test environment using the provided HTML preparation code `<script src="lodash.js"></script>`.
* The benchmark results a significantly faster execution time for the native `slice(1)` function compared to the Lodash `tail` method, indicating a performance advantage of using built-in functions over external libraries.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to compare these approaches without using Lodash, you could modify the Script Preparation Code to define a custom implementation of the `tail` method or use a different array manipulation function. For example:
```javascript
// Custom implementation of tail method
function tail(arr) {
  return arr.slice(0, -1);
}
```
Alternatively, you could use other JavaScript libraries like Array.prototype.map() and reduce() to achieve the same result.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional overhead due to the need for custom implementations or dependencies.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash tail vs native slice(1) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash tail vs Native slice(1)

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash tail

Native slice(1)

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):