Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash array length vs. lodash isEmpt
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs native
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.21/lodash.min.js" integrity="sha256-qXBd/EfAdjOA2FGrGAG+b3YBn2tn5A6bhz+LSgYD96k=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
Tests:
lodash
_.isEmpty([])
native
[].length > 0
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: using the `lodash` library to check if an array is empty, versus checking if an array has a length greater than 0 using native JavaScript. The goal is to determine which approach is faster. **Options Compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Lodash**: Using the `_lodash` library to check if an array is empty with the method `_.isEmpty([])`. 2. **Native**: Checking if an array has a length greater than 0 using the syntax `[].length > 0`. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Lodash:** Pros: * More readable code, as it explicitly checks for emptiness * Less chance of errors, as it's a well-tested method Cons: * Adds overhead due to the need to import an external library * May introduce additional dependencies in the project **Native:** Pros: * Faster execution, as it only requires a simple length check * No additional dependencies or libraries needed Cons: * Less readable code, as the intention of the comparison is not immediately clear * More chance of errors, if not implemented correctly **Other Considerations** Both approaches have their trade-offs. If readability and maintainability are more important than raw performance, using `lodash` might be a better choice. However, if speed is critical and code simplicity is acceptable, the native approach might be preferred. **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, `lodash` is used to check if an array is empty with the `_.isEmpty()` method. The purpose of this library is to provide a convenient way to perform common operations without having to write custom code. **Special JS Feature: None** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript syntax and libraries (in the case of Lodash). **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternatives to Lodash, some popular options include: * `Array.prototype.includes()`: Instead of checking if an array is empty using `[].length > 0`, you can use the `includes()` method with a sentinel value like `Infinity` or `NaN`. * `_isUndefined()` from Lodash: If you need to check for undefined values, you can use the `_isUndefined()` function provided by Lodash. Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics and trade-offs compared to using Lodash or native JavaScript.
Related benchmarks:
_.isEmpty vs Array.length
_.isEmpty vs. Array.length
Lodash isEmpty vs native .isArray + length
Comparing array perf of native .length and Lodash _.isEmpty
isEmpty Test
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?