Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash vs vanila
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs vanila
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
const status = "ACCEPTED_ON_AUDIT"; for ( let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { _.capitalize(status.replace("_"," ")) }
vanila
const status = "ACCEPTED_ON_AUDIT"; for ( let i = 0; i < 100000; i++) { status[0].toUpperCase() + status.slice(1).toLowerCase().split("_").join(" ");; }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash
vanila
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. The provided benchmark definition json represents two test cases: one for testing Lodash and another for vanilla JavaScript (without any external libraries). The benchmark is designed to measure the performance difference between these two approaches in a specific task. **Options being compared:** In this case, we have two options being compared: 1. **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript library that provides a lot of useful functions for various tasks, including string manipulation. 2. **Vanilla JavaScript**: The standard JavaScript language without any external libraries or frameworks. In this benchmark, vanilla JavaScript is used to implement the same task without using Lodash. **Pros and Cons:** **Lodash:** Pros: * Lodash provides a convenient way to perform string manipulation tasks using its `capitalize` function. * It reduces code duplication and makes the implementation more readable. Cons: * It introduces an external dependency, which may slow down the benchmark due to HTTP requests and loading times. * The overhead of using a library might outweigh any potential performance benefits. **Vanilla JavaScript:** Pros: * No external dependencies mean faster execution times and reduced latency. * It allows for direct access to low-level language features, which can lead to more efficient code. Cons: * More verbose code requires more attention and maintenance. * Without Lodash's `capitalize` function, you'd need to implement it yourself, which could be error-prone. **Library usage:** In the provided benchmark definition, Lodash is used in the `_.capitalize` function. This library provides a convenient way to capitalize the first character of a string while keeping the rest of the characters lowercase. The purpose of using Lodash in this benchmark is to test the performance difference between using an external library and implementing the task manually. **Special JavaScript feature or syntax:** None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition. However, some browsers like Chrome 104 use a special flag `-expose-globals` to expose global variables (like `_.`) even when running in strict mode. This is not directly related to the performance difference between Lodash and vanilla JavaScript but rather a quirk of the browser's behavior. **Other alternatives:** If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are some options: * **Other libraries:** You could compare the performance of other string manipulation libraries like UglifyJS or Fast.js. * **Different JavaScript versions:** Measure the performance difference between using modern JavaScript features (like arrow functions and template literals) versus older versions (like JavaScript 1.x). * **Multi-threaded vs single-threaded execution:** Test the performance of Lodash and vanilla JavaScript when executed in a multi-threaded environment, which could provide better concurrency benefits. In summary, this benchmark measures the performance difference between using an external library (Lodash) versus implementing the task manually in vanilla JavaScript. The results can help you understand the trade-offs between these approaches and make informed decisions about your own code.
Related benchmarks:
isFunction vs typeof function 6
isEmpty vs. vanilla
Lodash some vs isEmpty 2
lodash isNil vs === null || === undefined
lodash noop vs new function
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?