Benchmark: lodash10002 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var peopleArr = [];
var peopLen = 100;
for (let i = 0; i < peopLen; i++) {
  var obj = {
    name: 'Alex',
    age: Math.floor(Math.random() * 100),
    gender: Math.floor(Math.random() * 2) === 1 ? 'male' : 'female',
    isProgrammer: Math.floor(Math.random() * 2) === 1
  }

  peopleArr[i] = obj;
}

Tests:

Native
peopleArr.map(item => item);
Lodash
_.map(peopleArr, item => item);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash

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'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and some pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches to mapping over an array of objects: native JavaScript (`map`) versus Lodash (`_.map`).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates an array of 100 objects, each with a random `name`, `age`, `gender`, and `isProgrammer` property. This is done using a for loop that generates the objects on the fly.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library from a CDN (Content Delivery Network). This is necessary because the benchmark uses Lodash's `_map` function, which relies on this external library.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Native**: The native JavaScript `map` function is used to map over the `peopleArr` array.
2. **Lodash**: The Lodash `_map` function is used to map over the `peopleArr` array.

**Comparison**

The comparison is between the performance of the native JavaScript `map` function versus Lodash's `_map` function.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native JavaScript `map`**

Pros:

* No external dependencies, making it a more lightweight option.
* Can be optimized by JavaScript engines for native code.

Cons:

* May have slower performance compared to Lodash's `_map`, as it relies on the interpreter.
* Requires manual iteration over the array, which can lead to less efficient memory usage.

**Lodash `_map`**

Pros:

* Uses a dedicated library with built-in optimizations and caching.
* Can provide better performance due to these optimizations.

Cons:

* Requires an external dependency (the Lodash library), adding overhead.
* May have slower startup times compared to native JavaScript.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The `_map` function in particular is designed to map over arrays, applying a given callback function to each element.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any special feature or syntax being used here, but it's worth noting that Lodash's `_map` function uses the `bind` method internally to bind the callback function to the context of the array elements. This is not a specific JavaScript feature or syntax, but rather an optimization technique.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to implement your own mapping function using only native JavaScript, you could use a simple for loop or the Array.prototype.forEach() method. However, these approaches would likely be slower and less efficient than using Lodash's `_map` or native JavaScript `map`.

Here's an example of how you might implement a custom mapping function using a for loop:
```javascript
function map(arr, callback) {
  let result = [];
  for (let i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
    result.push(callback(arr[i]));
  }
  return result;
}
```
Keep in mind that this implementation would not be optimized for performance and would likely be slower than using Lodash's `_map` or native JavaScript `map`.

In summary, the benchmark is comparing the performance of native JavaScript `map` versus Lodash's `_map`, with pros and cons discussed above.

Related benchmarks:

lodash10002 (version: 0)

2

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash

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):