Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Native map

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

const limit = 100;

var arr = [];
for (let i = 0; i < limit; i++) {
  const key = Math.ceil(Math.random() * 1000)
  const el = [];
  for (let j = 0; j < 10; j++) {
    el.push(Math.random() * 1000);
  }
  arr.push(el)
}

Tests:

Native
let result = []; arr.forEach(innArr => { result.push(innArr.map(e => e * e)) })
Lodash.js values
let result = []; arr.forEach(innArr => { result.push(_.map(e => e * e)) })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash.js values

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros/cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two approaches:

1. **Native**: This approach uses JavaScript's built-in `forEach` loop to iterate over the array and apply a transformation function to each element.
2. **Lodash.js values**: This approach uses the popular utility library Lodash to perform the same transformation.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options:

* Native: Using JavaScript's built-in methods (`forEach`, `map`)
* Lodash.js: Using the Lodash library to access its `_.map` function

**Pros/Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native**
	* Pros:
		+ Typically faster since it doesn't involve an extra layer of abstraction (Lodash).
		+ More control over performance and optimizations.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more boilerplate code for complex transformations.
		+ Can be less readable and maintainable due to its functional programming nature.
2. **Lodash.js**
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to read and maintain, especially for complex transformations.
		+ Provides a standardized way of accessing common utility functions (e.g., `_.map`, `_forEach`).
		+ Often includes optimized implementations for specific use cases.
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce performance overhead due to the additional layer of abstraction.
		+ Requires including an extra library, which may add unnecessary overhead.

**Library: Lodash.js**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for common programming tasks, such as array manipulation, string processing, and object transformation. In this benchmark, we're using the `_.map` function to perform the same transformation as the native approach. The `_.map` function takes a callback function as an argument, which applies the transformation to each element in the input array.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you prefer not to use Lodash or if performance is critical for your specific use case, you could consider alternative approaches:

* Using a custom-built function: You can implement the transformation logic yourself using pure JavaScript functions. This approach provides maximum control over performance and optimizations but requires more boilerplate code.
* Using another library: Depending on your specific requirements, you might prefer to use another utility library like Ramda or Liskelp.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own pros and cons, and the choice ultimately depends on your project's specific needs, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.js vs Native map (version: 0)

Check lodash object values

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash.js values

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash.js values

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):