Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
flattern
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs flat vs reduce
Created:
3 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 arr = [ [1, 2], [3, 4], [5, 6] ]
Tests:
lodash
_.flatten(arr)
flat
arr.flat()
reduce
arr.reduce((accu, curr) => { return accu.concat([...curr]) }, [])
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash
flat
reduce
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 dive into the explanation. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents three test cases for measuring the performance of JavaScript functions that flatten arrays or iteratively concatenate array elements. The test cases are: 1. `_.flatten(arr)` using Lodash, a popular utility library for functional programming. 2. `arr.flat()` using the built-in `flat` method introduced in ECMAScript 2019 (ES2020). 3. A custom implementation using the `reduce` method: `arr.reduce((accu, curr) => { return accu.concat([...curr]) }, [])`. **Options compared** The options being compared are: * Lodash's `flatten` function * The built-in `flat` method introduced in ES2020 * A custom implementation using the `reduce` method **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Lodash's `flatten` function** * Pros: + Simple and concise syntax. + Handles nested arrays out-of-the-box. + Well-maintained and widely adopted library. * Cons: + Additional dependency (requires Lodash to be included). + May not be the most efficient solution, as it uses a separate function call. 2. **Built-in `flat` method** * Pros: + No additional dependency required. + Native implementation, potentially more efficient than using Lodash. + Part of the standard JavaScript library (ES2020+). * Cons: + Not supported in older browsers or Node.js versions that don't have ES2020 support. 3. **Custom `reduce` implementation** * Pros: + No dependencies required. + Can be optimized for specific use cases. * Cons: + More verbose syntax compared to Lodash's `flatten`. + Requires manual handling of edge cases (e.g., empty arrays). **Library and its purpose** Lodash is a utility library that provides various functions for functional programming, such as `flatten`, `map`, `filter`, and many more. Its primary purpose is to provide a set of reusable functions that make common tasks easier and more efficient. **Special JS feature or syntax (not applicable in this case)** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in these benchmark cases. **Other alternatives** If you're looking for alternative libraries or implementations, here are a few options: * **Array.prototype.flatten()`**: Similar to the built-in `flat` method, but using the Array.prototype's methods. * **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library that provides a `flatten` function similar to Lodash. * **Ramda**: A functional programming library that includes a `flatMap` function (similar to Lodash's `flatten`) and other utility functions. Please note that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, dependencies, or syntax compared to the options being tested.
Related benchmarks:
lodash slice
Lodash flatten vs nativate flat (depth 1)
hmmmmhmmm
.flat vs _.flatten
_.flatten vs .flatMap
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?