Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Native random2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

var arr1 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }

var arr3 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

Tests:

Native
Math.random() * 150 - 75;
Lodash.js filter
_.random(-75, 75);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash.js filter

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.

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

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches: native JavaScript and Lodash.js (a popular JavaScript utility library) for generating random numbers within a specific range.

**Native vs Lodash.js**

In the `Script Preparation Code`, we see that there are three arrays (`arr1`, `arr2`, and `arr3`) created using different methods:

*   `arr1`: Created with a traditional `for` loop, where the loop iterates from 0 to `max1` (100,000) and pushes each value into the array.
*   `arr2`: Created with a traditional `for` loop, similar to `arr1`, but iterates from 0 to `max2` (10,000,000).
*   `arr3`: Completed using a traditional `for` loop, iterating from 0 to `max3` (100,000,000).

These arrays are likely used as test subjects for measuring the performance of generating random numbers.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1.  **Native JavaScript**: Uses built-in JavaScript functions (`Math.random()` in this case) to generate random numbers.
2.  **Lodash.js**: Utilizes a utility library function (`_.random()`) specifically designed for generating random numbers within a specified range.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native JavaScript:**

*   **Pros:** Built-in, widely available, and efficient for most use cases.
*   **Cons:** May not be suitable for specific requirements (e.g., high-performance applications) or when dealing with large ranges of values.

**Lodash.js:**

*   **Pros:** Provides a consistent and predictable way to generate random numbers within a range, making it easier to write maintainable code. Also offers more features than native JavaScript functions.
*   **Cons:** Adds overhead due to the library, which may impact performance in critical sections of code.

**Library Used (Lodash.js)**

The `_.random()` function from Lodash.js generates random numbers within a specified range (in this case, -75 to 75). This function takes two arguments: the lower and upper bounds of the range. The result is a value between these bounds, inclusive.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

In this benchmark, no special JavaScript features or syntax are used beyond what's necessary for generating random numbers.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for generating random numbers include:

*   **Seedrandom.js**: A JavaScript library that provides more control over the randomness generation process.
*   **Crypto-JS**: A JavaScript library that includes functions for generating cryptographically secure random numbers.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different use cases or requirements, depending on your specific needs.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.js vs Native random2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash.js filter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash.js filter

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):