Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Native 100000

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = new Array(100000).fill({'firstName':'First', 'lastName': 'Last'});


var printFullName = (firstName, lastName) => console.log(firstName+' '+lastName);

Tests:

Native
data.map(item => printFullName(item.firstName, item.lastName));
Lodash
_.map(data, item => printFullName(item.firstName, item.lastName))

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.

Let's break down what is being tested in this benchmark.

**What is being compared:**

The test case compares the execution speed of two approaches:

1. **Native**: This refers to the built-in JavaScript function `map()` that is executed directly by the browser.
2. **Lodash**: This refers to the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides various helper functions.

**What are the pros and cons of each approach?**

* **Native (JavaScript map())**:
	+ Pros: Native code execution means no overhead from loading an external library, which can result in faster execution times.
	+ Cons: May not be optimized for performance, and can be affected by browser-specific optimizations or bugs.
* **Lodash (.map())**:
	+ Pros: Lodash provides a standardized and widely tested implementation of the `map()` function, ensuring consistency across different browsers and versions. This can also help with debugging and troubleshooting.
	+ Cons: Loading an external library introduces additional overhead, which can slow down execution times.

**Other considerations:**

* **Memory usage**: The test case uses an array of 100,000 objects, which may impact memory usage and allocation for both approaches.
* **Browser-specific optimizations**: Browsers often apply optimizations to built-in functions like `map()`, which can affect the results. Lodash, on the other hand, is a library that is not optimized by browsers.

**Library used:**

Lodash is used in this benchmark, specifically version 4.17.21. The `_.map()` function is a part of the Lodash library and is used to iterate over the `data` array and apply the `printFullName()` function to each element.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

The test case uses the following feature:

* **Arrow functions**: Both the native `map()` function and the Lodash `.map()` function use arrow functions (`(firstName, lastName) => console.log(firstName+' '+lastName)`). Arrow functions are a concise way to define small functions in JavaScript.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to measure the performance of other libraries or implementations of the `map()` function, you could consider using alternative libraries such as:

* **Array.prototype.map()**: This is another built-in JavaScript function that can be used for mapping over arrays.
* **ES6 spread operator**: The spread operator (`...`) can also be used to map over arrays and apply a transformation function to each element.
* **VanillaJS implementations**: You could write your own implementation of the `map()` function using vanilla JavaScript, without relying on external libraries.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of consistency or optimization as Lodash or built-in functions like `map()`.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.js vs Native 100000 (version: 0)

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):