Benchmark: Ramda vs json stringify

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [{foo: {bar: {foo: {bar: ''}}}}, {}, {}];

Tests:

Stringify
function obj2str (data) { return JSON.stringify(Object.keys(data) .sort() .reduce((acc, cur) => ( { ...acc, [cur]: data[cur] } ), {})) } var result = obj2str(data) === obj2str(JSON.stringify([{foo: {bar: {foo: {bar: ''}}}}, {}, {}]))
Ramda
var result = R.equals(data, [{foo: {bar: {foo: {bar: ''}}}}, {}, {}]);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Stringify
Ramda

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 142 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Stringify	58732.0 Ops/sec
Ramda	371730.2 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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and some considerations.

**Benchmark Purpose**

The primary goal of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two approaches: using `JSON.stringify()` with an object created manually, and using Ramda's `equals()` function to compare objects.

**Comparison Options**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Manual Stringification**: Using `JSON.stringify()` to convert an object into a string.
2. **Ramda's equals()**: Using the `equals()` function from the Ramda library to compare two objects for equality.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Manual Stringification

Pros:

* Easy to implement and understand
* Does not require any external libraries
* Can be optimized for performance by using a custom stringification algorithm

Cons:

* May not be as efficient or accurate as using a dedicated library like Ramda
* Requires manual handling of object properties, which can lead to errors or inconsistencies

### Ramda's equals()

Pros:

* Provides a concise and expressive way to compare objects
* Includes optimizations for performance, such as using a hash function to compare objects
* Reduces the risk of manual error or inconsistency

Cons:

* Requires including an external library (Ramda)
* May have a slight overhead due to the use of an additional library

**Library: Ramda**

Ramda is a popular JavaScript library that provides a functional programming style for working with data. The `equals()` function is used to compare two objects for equality, which in this benchmark is being compared against manual stringification.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax (None)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to use a different approach to comparing objects, some alternatives could include:

* Using the `==` operator for equality comparison
* Implementing your own custom equality function using a hash table or other data structure

However, these approaches would likely require more manual effort and optimization to achieve good performance.

In summary, this benchmark provides a clear comparison between two approaches: manual stringification vs. Ramda's equals() function. The results will help users understand the relative performance of each approach, with potential implications for optimizing their own JavaScript code.

Related benchmarks:

Ramda vs json stringify (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Stringify vs Ramda

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Stringify

Ramda

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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