Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Native 10000

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(10000).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 the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and discussed.

**Benchmark Test Case**

The test case is designed to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. Native JavaScript: The native implementation uses built-in JavaScript functions to map over an array of objects and print the full names.
2. Lodash.js: The Lodash library provides a `map` function that can be used to achieve the same result.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches:

* Native JavaScript
* Lodash.js

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native JavaScript**:
	* Pros:
		+ No external dependency (no library to load)
		+ Potential for better performance due to optimized native code
		+ Simplicity, as the test case only uses built-in functions
	* Cons:
		+ May require more effort to implement and optimize
2. **Lodash.js**:
	* Pros:
		+ Easier to implement, as it's a pre-existing library with an existing implementation
		+ Potential for better performance due to optimized library code
	* Cons:
		+ Requires loading the external Lodash library
		+ May introduce additional dependencies and potential security risks

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, the `map` function from Lodash.js is used. The purpose of Lodash.js is to provide a set of utility functions for JavaScript development, including `map`, `filter`, `reduce`, and more.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of Lodash.js introduces a new library dependency, which might affect performance or security depending on the specific context.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're considering implementing your own `map` function for native JavaScript (as opposed to using Lodash.js), you could consider alternatives like:

* Using an array method (e.g., `forEach`, `reduce`) instead of a pure mapping function
* Implementing a custom implementation using a technique like iteration or recursion

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have different performance characteristics, complexity levels, and trade-offs compared to the native JavaScript and Lodash.js approaches.

The provided benchmark allows you to compare the performance of two well-established approaches: native JavaScript and Lodash.js. By understanding the pros and cons of each approach, you can make informed decisions about which implementation to use in your own projects.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.js vs Native 10000 (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):