Benchmark: ramda vs normal range 5000

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Tests:

ramda
R.range(0, 5000).map(i => console.log("ramda" + i));
normal
Array.from( { length: 5000, }, (_, j) => { console.log(j) }, )

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ramda
normal

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
ramda	128.0 Ops/sec
normal	124.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the explanation of the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to generate an array of numbers from 0 to 5000: using Ramda, a functional programming library for JavaScript, and the native `Array.from` method in modern JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Ramda**: The first option uses Ramda's `R.range` function to generate an array of numbers from 0 to 5000. This approach is more concise and readable, as it leverages the functional programming paradigm.
2. **Native `Array.from` method**: The second option uses the native `Array.from` method with a generator function to achieve the same result. This approach is more verbose but still relatively simple.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Ramda**

Pros:

* More concise and readable code
* Leverages functional programming paradigm, which can lead to more efficient and composable code
* Often used in functional programming and data processing tasks

Cons:

* Requires additional library (Ramda) to be included in the benchmark
* May have slower performance due to overhead of function calls and object lookups

**Native `Array.from` method**

Pros:

* No external libraries required, reducing performance overhead
* Still relatively simple and straightforward code

Cons:

* More verbose and less readable compared to Ramda
* Can be less efficient due to additional method calls and array indexing operations

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the specific requirements of your project. If you need more concise and readable code for functional programming tasks, Ramda might be a good choice. However, if you prioritize performance and don't mind slightly longer code, the native `Array.from` method might be sufficient.

**Library: Ramda**

Ramda is a popular JavaScript library for functional programming. It provides a range of utility functions for data processing, transformation, and manipulation. In this benchmark, Ramda's `R.range` function generates an array of numbers from 0 to 5000 using a simple and efficient algorithm.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in exploring other features like async/await or Promises, I can provide more information on those as well!

Related benchmarks:

ramda vs normal range 5000 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ramda vs normal

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ramda

normal

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):