Benchmark: мвмывммвым

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

const j = [1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 35, 49, 68, 74, 86, 93, 110, 121, 135, 141, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168]

function lodashmap () {
  arr = _.map(j, function(el){
    return el * 10
  })
}

function jsmap () {
  arr = j.map(function(el){
    return el * 10
  })
}

Tests:

lodash
lodashmap()
js
jsmap()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
js

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.

I'd be happy to help you understand the benchmark and its options.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript functions: `lodashmap()` and `jsmap()`. Both functions are used to map over an array and perform some operation on each element. In this case, both functions multiply each element by 10.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Lodash**: The Lodash library is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers, including `map()`. Lodash's `map()` function is used in the `lodashmap()` benchmark.
2. **Native JavaScript**: The native JavaScript implementation uses the built-in `map()` function to achieve the same result as Lodash's `map()`. This implementation is used in the `jsmap()` benchmark.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Lodash:**
	+ Pros:
		- Easier to read and write code, especially for those familiar with functional programming concepts.
		- Provides additional features and functionality beyond just mapping an array.
	- Cons:
		- Adds overhead due to the library's existence and initialization.
		- May not be suitable for all use cases or performance-critical applications.
* **Native JavaScript:**
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution speed, as it avoids the overhead of loading a library.
		- More control over the implementation and optimization opportunities.
	- Cons:
		- Requires more knowledge of JavaScript and its built-in functions.
		- May be less readable or maintainable for those unfamiliar with the native `map()` function.

**Library Used: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers. In this benchmark, Lodash's `map()` function is used to achieve the same result as the native JavaScript implementation. The inclusion of Lodash suggests that the benchmark is interested in evaluating the performance of using an existing library versus implementing the operation natively.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, aside from the use of Lodash's `map()` function. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript versions (e.g., ES6+) provide a more concise way to map arrays using the `array.prototype.map()` method.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives or variations on this benchmark, here are some potential options:

* **Using different mapping functions**: Instead of just multiplying each element by 10, you could explore other mapping operations, such as squaring, adding a constant, or applying a transformation.
* **Comparing performance with different data sizes**: To evaluate the performance impact of using Lodash versus native JavaScript, you could increase the size of the input array and measure the execution times for both implementations.
* **Adding additional complexity to the benchmark**: You could introduce additional factors that affect performance, such as sorting the array before mapping or iterating over a large dataset with multiple operations.

Related benchmarks:

мвмывммвым (version: 0)

вамвавамвама

Comparing performance of: lodash vs js

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

js

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):