Benchmark: Lodash FP vs Lodash (2)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var fp = _.noConflict();
var array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z'];
var reducer = (r, x) => r + x;
var mapper = (v) => v;

Tests:

FP reduce
fp.reduce(reducer, '', array)
Reduce
_.reduce(array, reducer, '')
FP map
fp.map(mapper, array)
map
_.map(array, mapper)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
FP reduce
Reduce
FP map
map

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two versions of Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library: the functional programming (FP) version and the standard version.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code sets up two variables:

* `fp`: an instance of the FP version of Lodash, created using `_ = require('lodash');` and then calling `_noConflict()` to get the function.
* `array`: a sample array with 26 elements.
* `reducer`: a simple reducer function that takes two arguments: `r` (the accumulator) and `x` (the current element). The function returns the concatenation of `r` and `x`.
* `mapper`: a simple mapper function that takes one argument, `v`, and simply returns it.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes two JavaScript files:

* Lodash.min.js: the standard version of Lodash.
* lodash.fp.min.js: the functional programming version of Lodash.

This suggests that the test is comparing the performance of the FP version with the standard version, but also includes both versions in the same benchmark.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are four individual test cases:

1. **FP reduce**: Tests the `reduce` function from the FP version of Lodash.
2. **Reduce**: Tests the `reduce` function from the standard version of Lodash.
3. **FP map**: Tests the `map` function from the FP version of Lodash.
4. **Map**: Tests the `map` function from the standard version of Lodash.

**Library and Purpose**

* Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array manipulation, and more.
* The FP version of Lodash is a specialized version that implements functional programming concepts, making it easier to write and optimize functions that follow the principles of pure functions.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

None are mentioned in this benchmark.

**Pros and Cons of Different Approaches**

Using FP vs standard Lodash:

* **FP**: Advantages:
	+ More expressive and concise code
	+ Easier to reason about and debug
	+ Can lead to more efficient execution (due to the use of immutable data structures)
* **Standard Lodash**: Advantages:
	+ More widely adopted and supported by other libraries and frameworks
	+ May be faster in certain cases due to caching and memoization
* Disadvantages:
	+ Can be slower for complex computations due to the overhead of creating and managing immutable data structures

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between FP and standard Lodash, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If you need raw speed, the standard version might be a better choice. However, if you prioritize conciseness and readability, FP might be a better fit.
* Code maintainability: FP can make code more modular and easier to understand, but it may also introduce additional complexity for non-functional programmers.
* Compatibility: Make sure that your target environment supports both versions of Lodash.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to Lodash include:

* Ramda: A functional programming library with a similar API to Lodash.
* Immutable.js: A library for working with immutable data structures in JavaScript.
* Underscore.js: Another popular utility library, but not as widely adopted as Lodash.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash FP vs Lodash (2) (version: 1)

Comparing difference between FP and standard versions

Comparing performance of: FP reduce vs Reduce vs FP map vs map

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

FP reduce

Reduce

FP map

map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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