Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Native - empty

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Tests:

Native
!!"test"
Lodash.js filter
_.isEmpty("test");

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash.js filter

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 benchmark JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches: using Lodash (a popular JavaScript utility library) and native code to execute simple "test" strings. The goal is to determine which approach performs better in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared:

1. **Lodash.js**: The first option uses the Lodash library, specifically its `_.isEmpty` function, to check if a string (`"test"`) is empty. This involves loading the Lodash library and executing the `_.isEmpty` function.
2. **Native Code**: The second option uses native code (i.e., JavaScript without any libraries) to achieve the same result. Instead of using Lodash's `_.isEmpty`, it checks if the string is equal to an empty string (`""`).

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash.js:**

Pros:

* Easier to write and maintain, as it's a well-known library with a large community.
* Can be more convenient for developers who already know how to use Lodash.

Cons:

* Slower than native code due to the overhead of loading and executing a library.
* May not be suitable for projects where size or performance is critical.

**Native Code:**

Pros:

* Faster execution speed, as it avoids the overhead of loading a library.
* More control over the execution flow, which can lead to better optimization opportunities.

Cons:

* Requires more expertise in JavaScript and potentially more time-consuming to write and maintain.
* May require manual handling of edge cases and error scenarios.

**Other Considerations**

* The test uses Chrome 104 as the target browser. This might affect the results due to variations in implementation details or bug fixes across different browsers.
* The benchmark is run on a Desktop device with Chrome OS 14909.100.0. This specific hardware and operating system combination may influence the outcome.

**Library Used (Lodash)**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, such as string manipulation, array processing, and more. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.isEmpty` function is used to check if an object (or in this case, a string) is empty.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in the provided code snippets. The focus is on comparing the performance of two execution approaches.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for achieving the same result without using Lodash could include:

* Using built-in JavaScript functions like `typeof` and checking if the string has a length of 0.
* Implementing a custom empty-string-checking function in native code.

However, these alternatives might not be as efficient or convenient to use as Lodash's `_.isEmpty` function.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.js vs Native - empty (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash.js filter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash.js filter

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):