Benchmark: lodash isEmpty vs native

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {
  a: 1,
  b: 2,
  c: 3,
  d: {
    a: 1
  },
  g: {
    a: {
      c: 1
    }
  }
}

Tests:

lodash fp
_.isEmpty(obj)
es6 map
obj && Object.keys(obj).length === 0 && obj.constructor === Object

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash fp
es6 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 benchmarking scenario you provided.

**What is tested:**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches to check if an object is empty:

1. Using Lodash's `isEmpty` function, which takes an object as input and returns `true` if it has zero keys.
2. Using the native JavaScript syntax `obj && Object.keys(obj).length === 0 && obj.constructor === Object`, which checks if the object exists (i.e., not null or undefined), has no properties using `Object.keys()`, and is an instance of the `Object` constructor.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Lodash's `isEmpty` function**: Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides utility functions for tasks like this one.
2. **Native JavaScript syntax**: The native approach uses built-in JavaScript methods to check if an object is empty.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Lodash's `isEmpty` function:**

Pros:

* Concise and easy to read
* Faster execution (as it's a specialized optimized function)
* Less error-prone, as it handles edge cases like null or undefined inputs

Cons:

* Requires an external library (Lodash) to be included in the HTML file.
* May have performance overhead due to loading the Lodash library.

**Native JavaScript syntax:**

Pros:

* No external library dependencies
* Simple and straightforward code

Cons:

* More verbose and error-prone, as it requires careful handling of edge cases.
* May have slower execution compared to the optimized Lodash function.

**Other considerations:**

* Both approaches assume that the input object has a certain structure (i.e., it's an object with key-value pairs). If the input object has a different structure, one or both of these approaches may not work as expected.
* The native JavaScript syntax relies on `Object.keys()` and `constructor`, which have inherent overhead compared to other methods.

**Library used:**

In this benchmark, Lodash is included in the HTML file via a CDN link (`https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)`). This allows users to easily include Lodash's `isEmpty` function without downloading and including the library manually.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two approaches to check if an object is empty.

**Alternatives:**

If you don't want to use Lodash, you can also compare other approaches, such as:

* Using a custom implementation of the `isEmpty` function
* Using other libraries like Underscore.js or Moment.js (although these may have additional dependencies)
* Implementing a similar check using other methods, like `JSON.stringify()` and parsing the result

However, keep in mind that any alternative approach will likely require more manual effort to implement correctly.

Related benchmarks:

lodash isEmpty vs native (version: 0)

...

Comparing performance of: lodash fp vs es6 map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash fp

es6 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):