Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Lodash IsEmpty for objects
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
_.isEmpty vs forEach
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var obj = {};
Tests:
_.isEmpty
var a = _.isEmpty(obj)
forEach
for (var x in obj) { return false; } return true;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
_.isEmpty
forEach
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 break down the benchmark and its test cases. **What is being tested?** The benchmark is testing two different approaches to check if an object is empty: using the `_.isEmpty` function from the Lodash library, and using a traditional `for...in` loop with early returns. **Options compared:** 1. **Lodash's _.isEmpty**: This method takes an object as input and returns a boolean indicating whether the object is empty. 2. **Traditional for...in loop**: This approach uses a loop to iterate over the properties of the object using `for...in`. If any property exists, the loop continues; otherwise, it breaks out and returns false. **Pros and Cons:** 1. **Lodash's _.isEmpty**: * Pros: + Concise and readable code. + No need to worry about null or undefined objects. * Cons: + Requires Lodash library to be included in the test environment. + May have a slight performance overhead due to function call. 2. **Traditional for...in loop**: * Pros: + Native JavaScript, no additional library required. + Can handle null or undefined objects correctly. * Cons: + More verbose code compared to Lodash's _.isEmpty. + Requires explicit handling of early returns. **Library usage:** The `lodash` library is used in the benchmark to provide the `_.isEmpty` function. The library is included via a CDN link (`https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js`) to make it easily accessible during testing. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. It's straightforward JavaScript code that leverages the Lodash library and traditional `for...in` loop approaches. **Other alternatives:** In addition to Lodash's _.isEmpty, other alternatives for checking if an object is empty include: 1. **Object.keys() + length check**: Use `Object.keys()` to get an array of object properties and then check its length using the `length` property. 2. **For...of loop with hasOwnProperty()**: Use a `for...of` loop to iterate over the object's own enumerable properties and use `hasOwnProperty()` to skip inherited properties. 3. **Object.entries() + filter()**: Use `Object.entries()` to get an array of key-value pairs and then use the `filter()` method to check if any pair exists. These alternatives can be used in place of Lodash's _.isEmpty or traditional for...in loop approaches, but they may require more code and might have slightly different performance characteristics.
Related benchmarks:
isEmpty vs. vanilla
isEmpty vs Object.keys
Comparing of native .length and Lodash _.isEmpty
Comparing performance of native .length and Lodash _.isEmpty v2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?