Benchmark: Map (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash) v2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.28.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function double(n) {
    return n * 2;
}
var data = [...Array(10001)].map((v, idx) => idx);

Tests:

Ramda
R.map(double, data);
Array (native)
data.map(double);
Lodash
_.map(data, double);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
Array (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 break down the benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the speed of three different approaches to perform a map operation on an array:

1. Ramda's `R.map`
2. The native `map` function in JavaScript (i.e., Array.prototype.map())
3. Lodash's `_.map`

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two main options compared for each approach:

* Native JavaScript array method (`data.map(double)`)
* Ramda's functional programming library (`R.map(double, data)`)

For Lodash, the comparison is between its native map function and Ramda's map function.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native JavaScript Array Method**
	* Pros: Fast, widely supported, and intuitive.
	* Cons: May not be as expressive or declarative as other approaches, especially for complex operations.
2. **Ramda's R.map**
	* Pros:
		+ Declarative programming style
		+ Expressive and flexible
		+ Built on top of functional programming principles
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an additional library (Ramda)
		+ May have a steeper learning curve for developers unfamiliar with functional programming

3. **Lodash's _map**
	* Pros: Similar to Ramda's R.map, but optimized for performance.
	* Cons:
		+ Still requires an additional library (Lodash)
		+ May not be as expressive or flexible as native JavaScript array methods.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following:

* Performance: If speed is critical, the native JavaScript array method or Lodash's _map might be a better choice.
* Readability and Expressiveness: Ramda's R.map or Lodash's _map might be more suitable for complex operations where declarative programming makes sense.
* Learning Curve: Native JavaScript array methods are generally easy to learn and use, while Ramda and Lodash require additional knowledge of functional programming concepts.

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses two libraries:

1. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a set of higher-order functions for working with data. In this benchmark, it's used for its `R.map` function.
2. **Lodash**: A utility library that provides a set of helper functions for common tasks. In this benchmark, it's used for its `_map` function.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what is required by the `map` function itself.

Related benchmarks:

Map (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash) v2 (version: 0)

measures the speed of ramda's map vs Array's native map vs lodash map

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs Array (native) vs Lodash

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

Array (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):