Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
ramda includes vs array includes
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
native vs ramda
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.27.1/ramda.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var arr = ['I','a','m','a','r','r','a','y','t','o','c','h','e','c','k'];
Tests:
native
var result = arr.includes('y')
ramda
var result = R.includes('y', arr);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
native
ramda
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 dive into the explanation. The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between using native JavaScript `includes()` method and Ramda's `R.includes()` function to check if an element exists in an array. **Native JavaScript includes() method** The native JavaScript `includes()` method is a built-in function that checks if a specified value (in this case, 'y') exists in the given array (`arr`). This method returns `true` if the value is found, and `false` otherwise. The pros of using native `includes()` are: 1. **Performance**: Native code execution is generally faster than executing external library functions. 2. **Low overhead**: The native implementation has minimal overhead compared to other alternatives. However, there are some cons to consider: 1. **Browser compatibility**: While the native implementation might be supported by most modern browsers, older versions or browsers with limited JavaScript capabilities might not have this method available. 2. **Limited functionality**: Native `includes()` only checks for exact value matches; it doesn't provide additional features like finding the index of the element. **Ramda's R.includes() function** The Ramda library provides a higher-order function called `R.includes()` that takes two arguments: the value to search for (`'y'`) and the array to search in (`arr`). This function returns `true` if the value is found, and `false` otherwise. The pros of using Ramda's `R.includes()` are: 1. **Consistency**: Ramda provides a consistent implementation across different browsers and environments. 2. **Additional features**: Ramda's `R.includes()` can be used with other functions to create more complex queries. However, there are some cons to consider: 1. **Overhead**: Since Ramda is an external library, its execution incurs additional overhead compared to native code execution. 2. **Dependency on the library**: The test relies on Ramda being available and correctly configured in the browser. **Other alternatives** In addition to native `includes()` and Ramda's `R.includes()`, other alternatives could be considered: 1. **Array.prototype.some() or Array.prototype.every()**: While not exact matches, these methods can be used to achieve similar results with more flexibility. 2. **Using a library like Lodash's includes() function**: Like Ramda, Lodash provides a version of `includes()` that can be used in place of the native implementation. In summary, when choosing between native JavaScript `includes()` and Ramda's `R.includes()`, consider factors such as performance, browser compatibility, and additional features required.
Related benchmarks:
ramdajs contains
ramdajs contains
ramda append vs array shallow
Ramda range vs Array.from
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?