Benchmark: native reverse vs lodash _.revese - 4.17.21

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'joey',  'age': 32 },
  { 'user': 'ross',    'age': 41 },
  { 'user': 'chandler', 'age': 39 },
  { 'user': 'joey',  'age': 32 },
  { 'user': 'ross',    'age': 41 },
  { 'user': 'chandler', 'age': 39 }
]

Tests:

array reverse
// Native [...users].reverse()
_. reverse
_.reverse(users)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array reverse
_. reverse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 136 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array reverse	13813467.0 Ops/sec
_. reverse	46722696.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark definition and test cases for you.

**Benchmark Definition:**
The provided JSON defines a benchmark that compares two approaches to reversing an array:

1. **Native Approach**: The original code uses the `[...users].reverse()` syntax, which is part of the ECMAScript standard since ES6.
2. **Lodash Approach**: The second approach uses the `_.reverse(users)` method from the Lodash library (version 4.17.21).

**Options Compared:**
The two options being compared are:

* **Native Approach**: Uses the spread operator (`[...users]`) followed by the `reverse()` method.
* **Lodash Approach**: Uses the `_.reverse()` function from the Lodash library, passing in the `users` array as an argument.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Native Approach**:
	+ Pros:
		- Faster execution speed due to being a built-in ECMAScript feature.
		- Less memory usage since it doesn't require loading an external library.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be supported in older browsers or environments that don't support ES6 syntax.
* **Lodash Approach**:
	+ Pros:
		- More widely supported across different browsers and environments, as Lodash is a popular utility library.
		- May be more suitable for developers who are not familiar with the native approach or prefer to use an external library.
	+ Cons:
		- Slower execution speed due to loading the external library and executing the `_.reverse()` function.

**Library:**
In this benchmark, the Lodash library is used. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string formatting, and more.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**
The provided benchmark uses the ES6 spread operator (`[...users]`) which was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). This syntax allows for more concise and expressive code when working with arrays. The native approach also uses the `reverse()` method, which is a built-in function in ECMAScript.

**Other Alternatives:**
There are other approaches to reversing an array, such as using the `slice().reverse()` or `Array.prototype.reverse.call(users)` methods. However, these alternatives may not be as concise or efficient as the native approach and Lodash approach used in this benchmark.

Keep in mind that benchmarks can have varying results depending on the specific environment, browser, and hardware being tested. The provided results should be taken as a general indication of performance differences between these two approaches.

Related benchmarks:

native reverse vs lodash _.revese - 4.17.21 (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: array reverse vs _. reverse

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array reverse

_. reverse

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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