Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Ramda.prop() vs native js
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Ramda vs Native JS
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="//cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/ramda@latest/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var list = [] for (let i = 0; i < 200; i++) { list.push({ plugin: { i: i } }) }
Tests:
Ramda
R.compose(R.map(R.prop('plugin')), R.filter(R.prop('plugin')))(list)
Native JS
list.filter(x => x.plugin).map(x => x.plugin)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Ramda
Native JS
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):
**What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a benchmark that compares the performance of two approaches: using Ramda, a functional programming library for JavaScript, and native JavaScript functions. In the test case, a list of 200 objects with a `plugin` property is created. The benchmark measures the execution time of two different operations: 1. Using Ramda's `R.compose`, `R.map`, and `R.filter` functions to extract and process the `plugin` values. 2. Using native JavaScript functions (`filter` and `map`) to achieve the same result. **Options being compared** The benchmark compares two options: 1. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a concise and expressive way to perform operations on data. In this case, it's used for filtering and mapping the list. 2. **Native JavaScript**: Using native functions like `filter` and `map` to achieve similar results. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: **Ramda:** Pros: * Concise and expressive syntax * Reduced boilerplate code * Potential for better performance due to optimized algorithms Cons: * Additional dependency (requires loading Ramda library) * Steeper learning curve for those unfamiliar with functional programming concepts * Potential overhead due to library dependencies **Native JavaScript:** Pros: * No additional dependencies required * Familiar syntax for developers already comfortable with native JavaScript * Easy to understand and implement Cons: * More verbose code * Potential performance overhead due to interpreter overhead or caching issues * May require additional setup or boilerplate code **Other considerations** * **Caching**: The benchmark might be affected by caching mechanisms, such as browser cache or compiler optimizations. * **JIT compilation**: Modern JavaScript engines (like SpiderMonkey) perform just-in-time (JIT) compilation of native code. This can affect performance differences between Ramda and native JavaScript. * **Garbage collection**: JavaScript's garbage collection mechanism might impact the performance of native code execution. **Library used: Ramda** Ramda is a popular functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a concise and expressive way to perform operations on data. It's designed to be used with immutable data structures, which can lead to more efficient code and better performance. In this benchmark, Ramda is used to define functions like `R.compose`, `R.map`, and `R.filter`, which are then composed together to execute the desired operation on the input list. **Special JS feature: ES6 syntax** While not explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON, it's worth noting that both test cases use modern JavaScript features (ES6+ syntax) that provide concise and expressive ways to write code. The `const` keyword is used for variable declarations, and the arrow function syntax (`x => x.plugin`) is used for defining small anonymous functions. Overall, this benchmark provides a simple and informative way to compare the performance of two approaches: using Ramda's functional programming library versus native JavaScript functions. It helps developers understand the trade-offs between these two options and make informed decisions about their codebase.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.push vs spread
Array construct vs array push
set.add vs array.push
ForOf+Push vs Map
spread vs push large
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?