Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Native 1

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array.from(Array(10000000).keys()).map((a) => {
    return {
        id: a,
        name: a
    }
});

Tests:

Lodash
_.map(data, (d) => d);
Native
data.map(d => d);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of Lodash.js (a popular utility library for JavaScript) and native JavaScript (without any additional libraries) when executing two simple operations: mapping an array using `_.map` from Lodash and `data.map()` in native JavaScript.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines a large dataset, `data`, which consists of 10 million objects with `id` and `name` properties. This data will be used for both benchmark tests.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a reference to the Lodash.js library version 4.17.4, which is used by the first test case (`Lodash`).

**Benchmark Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Lodash**: The benchmark definition uses `_.map(data, (d) => d);`, which calls the `map()` function from Lodash on the `data` array.
2. **Native**: The benchmark definition uses `data.map(d => d);`, which implements a similar mapping operation without using any external library.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash (_.map)**:
	+ Pros: Lodash provides a well-maintained, tested, and optimized implementation of `map()`. It also offers additional functionality out of the box.
	+ Cons: The benchmark requires an external library to be included in the HTML, which may impact performance due to overhead.
* **Native (data.map())**:
	+ Pros: This approach is native to JavaScript, so there's no external library overhead. It's also a straightforward implementation that can be easily optimized.
	+ Cons: Without Lodash or other libraries, this implementation might not be as efficient or feature-rich as the `.map()` function in Lodash.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used to implement the `map()` function. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. Its purpose is to provide concise, expressive, and efficient solutions for common programming tasks, making developers' lives easier.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, as both tests follow standard JavaScript syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

For alternative approaches to mapping arrays, you can explore other methods like:

* Using `Array.prototype.forEach()` and returning a new array with transformed values
* Utilizing `Array.prototype.reduce()` and accumulating the transformed values
* Leveraging modern JavaScript features like arrow functions, template literals, or `map`-like methods in libraries like Ramda or Immutable.js

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preferences.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.js vs Native 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Native

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):