Benchmark: Comparing perf of native .length and Lodash _.isEmpty

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {};

Tests:

Lodash
_.isEmpty(obj)
Native
Object.keys(obj).length === 0

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Native

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 provided benchmarking test cases.

**What is tested?**

The test case compares the performance of two approaches to check if an object is empty:

1. **Native approach**: Using the `Object.keys(obj).length === 0` syntax to check if an object has no keys.
2. **Lodash approach**: Using the `_isEmpty` function from the Lodash library to check if an object is empty.

**Options comparison**

The two approaches have different pros and cons:

*   **Native approach**:
    *   Pros:
        *   Built-in functionality, no additional dependencies required.
        *   Potential performance benefit due to optimized native code.
    *   Cons:
        *   May not be as readable or maintainable for complex object checks.
        *   Can lead to brittle code if not properly tested.
*   **Lodash approach**:
    *   Pros:
        *   More readable and maintainable, especially for complex object checks.
        *   Can reduce code duplication and make it easier to reuse functions.
    *   Cons:
        *   Requires an additional dependency (Lodash library) which may introduce performance overhead.

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the trade-off between performance, readability, and maintainability. If performance is critical and you're certain about the object's structure, using the native approach might be suitable. However, if code readability and maintainability are more important, or if you need to reuse this logic elsewhere, the Lodash approach could be a better choice.

**Lodash library**

The Lodash library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and functional programming. The `_isEmpty` function in particular checks if an object has any key-value pairs and returns `true` if the object is empty.

**Special JS feature or syntax (not applicable)**

Since there are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark, we can skip discussing them.

**Alternative approaches**

Other alternatives to compare the performance of these two approaches could be:

*   **Using other library functions**: Other libraries like Underscore.js or Ramda.js might offer similar functions for checking empty objects.
*   **Implementing custom function**: Writing a custom JavaScript function to check if an object is empty, which would require manual implementation and testing.
*   **Comparison with built-in methods (e.g., `Object.entries()`)**: Using built-in methods like `Object.entries()` to iterate over the object's key-value pairs and checking if it returns an empty array.

These alternative approaches would likely yield different results due to differences in implementation, dependencies, and performance characteristics.

Related benchmarks:

Comparing perf of native .length and Lodash _.isEmpty (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Native

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):