Benchmark: Deep clone: lodash vs ramda

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Tests:

lodash deep clone
const a = { a: { c: { e: { h:4 }, f: 3 }, d: 2 }, b: 1 }; const b = _.cloneDeep(a)
ramda deep clone
const a = { a: { c: { e: { h:4 }, f: 3 }, d: 2 }, b: 1 }; const b = R.clone(a);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash deep clone
ramda deep clone

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 world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is comparing the performance of two popular JavaScript libraries: Lodash and Ramda, specifically when it comes to performing deep clones on objects.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing the following options:

1. **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library that provides a lot of functional programming features.
2. **Ramda**: A functional programming library for JavaScript that aims to provide a more concise and expressive way of writing code.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Lodash Deep Clone**: Lodash's `cloneDeep` function creates a deep clone of an object, which can be useful when you need to create a copy of a complex object without modifying the original.
	+ Pros:
		- Robust error handling
		- Handles cycles (circular references) well
		- Often used in production code due to its popularity and widespread adoption
	+ Cons:
		- Can be slower than Ramda's implementation, especially for large objects
		- May not be the best choice if you're working with very large datasets or performance-critical applications
* **Ramda Deep Clone**: Ramda's `R.clone` function creates a deep clone of an object using a more functional programming approach.
	+ Pros:
		- Often faster than Lodash's implementation, especially for large objects
		- More concise and expressive code
		- Good choice if you're working with small to medium-sized datasets or want a more concise solution
	+ Cons:
		- May not handle cycles as well as Lodash (although this is rarely a problem in practice)
		- May require additional setup or configuration for error handling

**Library explanations**

* **Lodash**: A widely used JavaScript utility library that provides a lot of functional programming features, including array utilities, string manipulation, and object creation methods.
* **Ramda**: A functional programming library for JavaScript that aims to provide a more concise and expressive way of writing code. It's designed to be faster and more memory-efficient than Lodash.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JS feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on the performance comparison between Lodash and Ramda when it comes to deep cloning objects.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries for deep cloning, some other options include:

* **JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))**: A simple but slow method that can work for small datasets.
* **Array.prototype.slice() + Array.prototype.concat()**: A more complex approach that involves creating a shallow clone of the object and then recursively cloning its properties.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as efficient or robust as Lodash's `cloneDeep` or Ramda's `R.clone`, especially for large datasets.

Related benchmarks:

Deep clone: lodash vs ramda (version: 0)

Deep ccomparisonh vs ramda

Comparing performance of: lodash deep clone vs ramda deep clone

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash deep clone

ramda deep clone

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):