Benchmark: Ladash map versus ECMA6 map

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var myArray = ['hello', 'world', 'welcome'];

Tests:

Lodash map
_.map(myArray, (value, index) => console.log(index, value))
ECMA6 map
myArray.map((value, index) => console.log(index, value))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash map
ECMA6 map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/131.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash map	69652.8 Ops/sec
ECMA6 map	77065.1 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between using ECMA6 (built-in JavaScript array method) for mapping and using Lodash's `map` function to achieve the same result.

**Options compared:**

* **ECMA6 map**: The built-in JavaScript array method `map()` that was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It takes two arguments: a callback function, which is applied to each element of the array, and an optional second argument for the index.
* **Lodash 4.17.5 map**: Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a wide range of utility functions, including `map()`. The `map()` function in Lodash takes two arguments: a function to be applied to each element of the array, and an optional second argument for the index.

**Pros and cons:**

* **ECMA6 map**: Pros:
	+ Built-in JavaScript method, so it's easy to understand and use.
	+ Typically faster because it doesn't involve an additional library call.
	+ Easy to integrate with other JavaScript code.
* Cons:
	+ May not be supported in older browsers or environments that don't have ES6 support.
	+ Requires a callback function, which can make the code more complex.
* **Lodash 4.17.5 map**: Pros:
	+ Widespread support across modern browsers and environments.
	+ Can be used with other Lodash functions to create more complex pipelines.
	+ Often faster than using built-in methods because it's a specialized function optimized for performance.
* Cons:
	+ Requires an additional library call, which can impact performance.
	+ May be overkill for simple mapping tasks.

**Library:**

The `lodash` library is used in the benchmark to provide its `map()` function. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for common tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in this specific benchmark.

**Other alternatives:**

* Other built-in JavaScript methods like `forEach()` or `reduce()` could be used instead of `map()`. However, these methods have different use cases and might not provide the same performance benefits as `map()`.
* Alternative libraries like `underscore.js` (a predecessor to Lodash) or other specialized mapping libraries could also be used.

In summary, the benchmark tests the performance difference between using ECMA6's built-in `map()` method and Lodash's `map()` function for a simple array mapping task. The results can help developers understand the trade-offs between using built-in methods versus specialized libraries like Lodash.

Related benchmarks:

Ladash map versus ECMA6 map (version: 0)

Test if using ECMA6 map is better than using lodash map

Comparing performance of: Lodash map vs ECMA6 map

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash map

ECMA6 map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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