Benchmark: Native ranged random vs Lodash ranged random - short range

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var START = 0;
var END = 10;

function nativeRandom(startInc, endExc) {
  return startInc + Math.floor(Math.random() * (endExc - startInc))
}

function lodashRandom(startInc, endExc) {
  return _.random(startInc, endExc - 1)
}

Tests:

Native
nativeRandom(START, END);
Lodash
lodashRandom(START, END);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash

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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares the performance of two approaches for generating random numbers within a specified range: one using native JavaScript (`nativeRandom`) and another using the popular library Lodash (`lodashRandom`).

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Native JavaScript**: The `nativeRandom` function uses the built-in `Math.random()` method to generate a random number between 0 (inclusive) and 1 (exclusive). To achieve a range of [START, END], it adds an increment (`startInc`) to the result.
2. **Lodash**: The `lodashRandom` function uses Lodash's `random` utility function to generate a random number within a specified range.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Native JavaScript**:
	+ Pros:
		- Fast, as it only involves a single multiplication and addition operations.
		- Lightweight, with no dependencies.
	+ Cons:
		- May have limited control over the generated numbers (due to the nature of `Math.random()`).
		- Might be less reliable in certain situations (e.g., due to floating-point precision issues).
* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides more control over the generated numbers, as it can take a range explicitly.
		- Can be more predictable and consistent.
	+ Cons:
		- Slower than native JavaScript due to the additional overhead of the library.
		- Adds dependency on Lodash.

**Library usage:**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used for its `random` utility function. Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides various utilities for tasks such as array manipulation, functional programming, and more. In this case, it's used to provide a convenient way to generate random numbers within a specified range.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript constructs, making it accessible to a wide range of developers.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for generating random numbers, here are some options:

* **Crypto**: The Web Cryptography API provides a way to generate cryptographically secure pseudo-random numbers.
* **Seedrandom**: A lightweight library that generates random numbers using the seedrandom algorithm.
* **Mathjs**: A math library that includes functions for random number generation.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different characteristics, trade-offs, and use cases compared to native JavaScript or Lodash.

Related benchmarks:

Native ranged random vs Lodash ranged random - short range (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash

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):