Benchmark: Ramda vs. VanillaJS - Find an object by prop

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.27.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
     data.push({ id: i });
}

var expected = data[9999];

Tests:

Ramda
var result = R.find(R.propEq('id',9999), data)
VanillaJS
var result = data.find(d => d.id === 9999)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
VanillaJS

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 dive into the Benchmark Definition and explain what's being tested.

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches: Ramda (a functional programming library for JavaScript) and VanillaJS (JavaScript without any additional libraries).

**What is being tested?**

In this benchmark, we're testing the performance of finding an object with a given property from a list. Specifically, we're looking at how fast each approach can find an object in the `data` array that matches the condition specified by the `id` property.

**Options compared:**

There are two approaches being compared:

1. **Ramda**: Uses Ramda's `R.find()` function to find the first element in the `data` array that satisfies the condition defined by `R.propEq('id', 9999)`. This function returns an optional value, which is then assigned to the `result` variable.
2. **VanillaJS**: Uses a simple `for...of` loop or the `find()` method (in modern JavaScript versions) to iterate over the `data` array and find the first element that matches the condition `d.id === 9999`.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Ramda**:
	+ Pros:
		- More concise and expressive code
		- Easier to read and maintain, especially for those familiar with functional programming concepts
	+ Cons:
		- Adds additional dependencies (the Ramda library) that might not be necessary for this specific use case
		- Can be slower due to the overhead of function calls and potential caching issues
* **VanillaJS**:
	+ Pros:
		- No additional dependencies or performance overhead
		- More familiar to developers who are already comfortable with JavaScript's built-in features
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more code and manual looping, which can make it less readable and maintainable for complex iterations
		- Might require more debugging effort due to the absence of a single, concise function call

**Library:**

The Ramda library provides functional programming utilities and operations that can be used to transform, filter, or find elements in data arrays. In this specific case, `R.find()` is used to search for an element that matches the condition specified by `R.propEq('id', 9999)`.

**Special JS feature:**

The benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features, such as async/await, promises, or ES modules (ESM). The code is straightforward and uses the built-in `find()` method for VanillaJS.

Now that we've broken down the benchmark, let's consider other alternatives:

* **Lodash**: Another popular functional programming library for JavaScript, which provides similar functionality to Ramda. However, Lodash has a slightly different API and might not be suitable for this specific use case.
* **Native array methods**: Instead of using Ramda or VanillaJS, you could implement the search logic using native array methods like `indexOf()` or `forEach()`. This approach would be even more dependent on the JavaScript engine's performance characteristics, but it might still yield competitive results.

Related benchmarks:

Ramda vs. VanillaJS - Find an object by prop (version: 0)

Compares performance of finding an object with a given property from a list.

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs VanillaJS

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

VanillaJS

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):