Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Test Lodash KarthikMM
(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://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Tests:
Lodash
_.map([1,2,3], i => i);
Native
[1,2,3].map(i => i)
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):
I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its various components. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case for two different approaches: using Lodash (a popular utility library) and native JavaScript. **Options compared** In this benchmark, we have: 1. **Native**: This option uses only native JavaScript, without any additional libraries. 2. **Lodash**: This option uses the Lodash library to implement a similar functionality as the native approach. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** **Native Approach:** Pros: * Lightweight and doesn't require loading an extra library * May be faster since it only involves native JavaScript functions * Easier to optimize since it's a single implementation Cons: * May have performance regressions due to the overhead of using native JavaScript functions (e.g., function calls, type checking) * Limited functionality compared to Lodash **Lodash Approach:** Pros: * Provides a well-tested and optimized implementation for common tasks * Allows for a more concise and readable codebase * Can be faster since it's optimized for performance Cons: * Requires loading an additional library (Lodash) * May have performance overhead due to the extra function call and type checking **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, object manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, we're using the `map` function from Lodash to compare its performance with native JavaScript. **Special JS feature or syntax** None are mentioned in the provided benchmark code. **Other alternatives:** If you were considering alternative approaches, some options might include: 1. **Underscore.js**: Similar to Lodash, but with a different API and some differences in functionality. 2. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a more concise and expressive API for common tasks. 3. **ES6+ Native Implementations**: Some native JavaScript functions (e.g., `Array.prototype.map()`) have been optimized for performance using ES6+ features like `let` and `const`. Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preferences. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The script preparation code for this benchmark includes a single line: ```html <script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script> ``` This loads the Lodash library in the background, allowing us to use its functions without any performance overhead. **Individual Test Cases** The benchmark consists of two test cases: 1. `_.map([1,2,3], i => i);`: This test case uses the Lodash `map` function with a callback function. 2. `[1,2,3].map(i => i)`: This test case uses native JavaScript's `map` function. The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between these two approaches.
Related benchmarks:
isEmpty vs. vanilla
asdasdjkh askjdjkasdkjasd
isUndefined
Random perf
lodash vs radash 3
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?