Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Lodash vs Lodash/fp
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Lodash vs native
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z'] var reducer = (r, x) => r + x
Tests:
Lodash
_.reduce(array, reducer, '')
native
array.reduce(reducer, '')
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! **Benchmark Overview** The provided JSON represents a benchmark test between two approaches: Lodash (with its functional programming style) and the native JavaScript `reduce` method. **Options Compared** In this benchmark, we have two options being compared: 1. **Lodash (`_.reduce`)**: A popular JavaScript library for functional programming tasks. The `_.reduce` function is used to reduce an array to a single value. 2. **Native JavaScript (`array.reduce`)**: The built-in JavaScript method for reducing arrays. **Pros and Cons** **Lodash (`.reduce`)** Pros: * Familiarity: Developers are more likely to be familiar with Lodash's functional programming style, which can lead to faster execution times due to less overhead in parsing the code. * Robustness: Lodash provides a robust implementation of `_.reduce`, which handles edge cases and errors more efficiently. Cons: * Overhead: Using an external library like Lodash adds overhead due to loading and initialization time. * Performance: While Lodash's implementation is optimized, it might not be as fast as the native JavaScript method for simple reductions. **Native JavaScript (`array.reduce`)** Pros: * Speed: Native JavaScript methods are typically faster since they don't involve loading an external library. * Simplicity: The `reduce` method is a straightforward, built-in function that requires minimal overhead to execute. Cons: * Complexity: Developers may need more time and effort to understand the native `reduce` method's behavior, especially when dealing with edge cases. * Browser Support: Not all browsers support this feature (e.g., older versions of Internet Explorer). **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library developed by Isaac Schlueter. It provides a comprehensive set of functional programming tools, including the `_.reduce` function. **Special JS Feature/Syntax** None mentioned in the provided JSON. **Other Alternatives** If you're interested in alternative approaches or modifications to this benchmark, consider: * Using a different JavaScript library for the `reduce` method (e.g., Ramda, Underscore.js). * Implementing a custom `reduce` function using pure functions. * Modifying the input data or reducing strategy to explore different performance scenarios. **Benchmark Preparation Code** The provided Script Preparation Code sets up an array `array` and defines a simple reducer function `reducer`, which concatenates two elements. The Html Preparation Code includes Lodash's JavaScript file for use in the benchmark. By analyzing this benchmark, you can gain insights into the relative performance of using external libraries versus native JavaScript methods for reducing arrays.
Related benchmarks:
Lodash reduce vs Lodash FP reduce
Lodash vs Lodash FP vs Immer
Lodash vs Lodash FP vs Native
Native vs Lodash vs Lodash FP - v3
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?