Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Lodash@4.17.21 includes vs native includes
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Lodash vs Native
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var fruits = ['apple', 'banana', 'pear', 'mango'];
Tests:
Lodash
_.includes(fruits, 'pear');
Native
fruits.includes('pear');
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and its options, exploring what is tested, pros and cons of each approach, library usage, special JavaScript features, and other considerations. **Benchmark Overview** The test compares two approaches to implement the `includes()` method: 1. **Lodash**: The Lodash library provides a pre-built implementation of the `includes()` method. 2. **Native**: A native implementation of the `includes()` method using only JavaScript syntax. **Options Compared** The benchmark tests both Lodash and Native implementations for the following scenarios: * `_.includes(fruits, 'pear');`: Uses the Lodash library to call its `includes()` method on an array of fruit names. * `fruits.includes('pear');`: Implements the native `includes()` method directly using JavaScript syntax. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Lodash:** Pros: * Provides a well-tested, optimized implementation that is likely to be faster than a hand-rolled version. * Eliminates the need for manual array indexing or looping, making the code more concise and readable. Cons: * Introduces an external dependency (the Lodash library) that may not be included in all environments (e.g., older browsers). * May not provide optimal performance for very large arrays due to the overhead of calling a JavaScript function. **Native:** Pros: * Eliminates the need for an external dependency, making it more suitable for development environments or production code. * Can potentially be optimized for specific use cases, such as very large arrays. Cons: * Requires manual implementation of the `includes()` method, which can lead to code duplication and maintenance challenges. **Library Usage** The benchmark uses Lodash version 4.17.21, which provides a robust implementation of the `includes()` method. **Special JavaScript Features** None mentioned in this specific benchmark. **Other Considerations** When writing performance-critical code, consider the following: * Use built-in methods and libraries whenever possible to reduce overhead and increase reliability. * Profile your code to identify performance bottlenecks and optimize accordingly. * Keep dependencies minimal and well-maintained to avoid issues with updates or compatibility. * Test on multiple browsers and platforms to ensure robustness. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for implementing the `includes()` method include: * Using a custom, hand-rolled implementation that leverages native array methods (e.g., `Array.prototype.indexOf()`) or optimized algorithms. * Employing specialized libraries or frameworks that provide optimized implementations of common data structures and algorithms (e.g., Array.js). * Considering other approach altogether, such as using a different data structure (e.g., using objects instead of arrays)
Related benchmarks:
_.includes vs includes()
IndexOf vs Includes vs lodash includes for string
lodash includes vs has
_.includes vs includes() 2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?