Benchmark: isEqual vs v-anilla

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  window.lodash = _;
  _ = null;
</script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.9.1/underscore-min.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  window.underscore = _;
  _ = null;
</script>

Script Preparation code:

var arr1 = ['NOMINALE']
var arr2 = ['ALTERNATIVE']

function equals(a, b){
  return a.length === b.length &&
  a.every((v, i) => v === b[i])
};

Tests:

lodash
underscore.isEqual(arr1, arr2);
Vanilla
equals(arr1, arr2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
Vanilla

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing the performance of two approaches to compare arrays: `underscore.isEqual` and a vanilla JavaScript implementation, also named `equals`. The test cases are designed to measure the execution time of these functions for identical input data.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Vanilla**: A custom implementation of array comparison using JavaScript's built-in methods (`length` and `every`).
2. **Lodash**: The `_` library, which provides a utility function `isEqual` to compare arrays.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

### Vanilla

Pros:

* No external dependencies (no extra libraries to load)
* Simple and lightweight implementation
* Easy to understand and implement

Cons:

* May be slower due to the overhead of JavaScript's built-in methods
* Requires more CPU cycles for array iteration

### Lodash

Pros:

* Optimized for performance by using a specialized implementation
* Includes additional utility functions that may be useful in other contexts
* Can improve code readability by abstracting away low-level details

Cons:

* Adds an extra library dependency (lodash)
* May introduce security risks if not used carefully (e.g., modifying the `_` variable)

**Library descriptions:**

1. **Lodash**: A popular utility library for JavaScript, providing a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more.
2. **Underscore.js**: A minimalist alternative to Lodash, providing a smaller set of functional programming helpers.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Other alternatives:**

If you prefer not to use Lodash or Underscore.js, you could implement your own array comparison function using JavaScript's built-in methods. Alternatively, you could explore other libraries like `fast-assert` or `jsutils`, which provide similar functionality.

For example, if you wanted to implement a custom `equals` function using only vanilla JavaScript:

```javascript
function equals(arr1, arr2) {
  return arr1.length === arr2.length && arr1.every((v, i) => v === arr2[i]);
}
```

This implementation is similar to the `equals` function in the benchmark definition. However, keep in mind that it may be slower than the optimized Lodash implementation.

When writing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors like performance, code readability, and maintainability. By choosing an approach carefully, you can create a fair and informative benchmark that helps developers understand the trade-offs of different programming techniques.

Related benchmarks:

isEqual vs v-anilla (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs Vanilla

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

Vanilla

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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