Benchmark: Ramda vs native map speed

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.27.1/ramda.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [
    1, 2, 3
]

Tests:

native add 1
data.map(item => item + 1)
ramda add 1
R.map(item => item + 1, data)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
native add 1
ramda add 1

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:134.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/134.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
native add 1	24466308.0 Ops/sec
ramda add 1	11698205.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

MeasurThat.net is testing the performance of two approaches: native JavaScript and Ramda (a functional programming library) for mapping over an array.

The benchmark defines a simple script that creates an array `data` with some initial values, and then tests the execution speed of two different functions:

1. Native JavaScript function using the `map()` method.
2. Ramda function using the `R.map()` method (from the Ramda library).

**Options being compared:**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Native JavaScript**: Using the built-in `map()` method provided by JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 in Chrome).
2. **Ramda**: Using the Ramda library's `R.map()` function, which provides a functional programming interface for working with arrays.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Native JavaScript**:
	+ Pros:
		- Built-in to JavaScript, so no additional dependencies.
		- Typically faster since it doesn't introduce extra overhead from a library.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as expressive or concise as Ramda's syntax.
		- Can be less intuitive for developers without experience with functional programming.
* **Ramda**:
	+ Pros:
		- More expressive and concise syntax, making code easier to read and write.
		- Can provide more robust error handling and type safety.
	+ Cons:
		- Introduces an additional dependency (the Ramda library), which may slow down execution.
		- May not be as optimized for performance as native JavaScript.

**Other considerations:**

* **Libraries like Lodash**: MeasurThat.net also tests the performance of Lodash, another popular functional programming library. However, it's not explicitly mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.
* **Special JavaScript features or syntax**: The benchmark doesn't use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code` sections specify how to include the necessary libraries (Ramda) before running the benchmark. This ensures that the tests are run with a consistent environment and without external dependencies interfering with the results.

In summary, MeasurThat.net is testing the performance difference between using native JavaScript's `map()` method versus Ramda's `R.map()` function for mapping over an array. The test provides valuable insights into the relative speeds of these two approaches, which can help developers make informed decisions about the best library or approach to use in their projects.

Related benchmarks:

Ramda vs native map speed (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: native add 1 vs ramda add 1

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

native add 1

ramda add 1

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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