Benchmark: lodash times vs Array.from

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

n = 1000

Tests:

lodash times
_.times(n, () => null)
Array.from
Array.from({ length: n }, () => null)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash times
Array.from

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:138.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/138.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 138 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash times	220141.0 Ops/sec
Array.from	190613.3 Ops/sec

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 definition and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two JavaScript methods:

1. `_.times(n, () => null)` from the Lodash library
2. `Array.from({ length: n }, () => null)` (directly using the Array prototype)

**What are we testing?**

We're measuring the execution speed of both methods on an array of 1000 elements, where each element is assigned a value of `null`. The goal is to determine which method is faster in this specific scenario.

**Options compared:**

The two options being compared are:

1. Using Lodash's `times` function
2. Directly using the Array prototype with `Array.from`

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Lodash's `times`:**

Pros:

* Provides a convenient way to create an array of elements
* Can be useful when working with specific iteration patterns

Cons:

* May introduce overhead due to the use of a separate library
* May not be optimized for performance, especially for large arrays

**Directly using Array.prototype:**

Pros:

* Optimized for performance and memory efficiency
* Can take advantage of native JavaScript optimizations

Cons:

* Requires manual implementation of the iteration pattern
* May require more code and maintenance effort

**Library used:**

The Lodash library is a popular utility belt for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for common tasks. In this case, the `times` function is being used to create an array of elements.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in the benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that Lodash's `times` function uses a technique called "arity checking" to determine the number of arguments passed to the callback function, which can be useful when working with dynamic iteration patterns.

**Other considerations:**

* The benchmark is running on a desktop device with Chrome 107 and Mac OS X 10.15.7.
* The `ExecutionsPerSecond` value indicates the average number of executions per second for each test case.
* The benchmark results show that Lodash's `times` function is slightly faster than the direct Array.prototype implementation.

**Alternatives:**

Other alternatives to consider when creating JavaScript benchmarks include:

* Using native JavaScript methods like `Array.from` and `forEach`
* Utilizing WebAssembly or other performance-optimized libraries
* Experimenting with different browser versions and platforms to identify potential performance differences
* Adding more test cases to cover additional scenarios and edge cases

Related benchmarks:

lodash times vs Array.from (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash times vs Array.from

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash times

Array.from

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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