Benchmark: fxjs vs native - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/fxjs/dist/fx.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [10, 40, 230, 15, 18, 51, 1221];

Tests:

fxjs
_.filter(numbers, num => num % 3 === 0)
native filter
numbers.filter(num => num % 3 === 0)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
fxjs
native filter

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 explanation of the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines two benchmark tests:

1. `fxjs vs native`: This is the main benchmark test that compares the performance of JavaScript (specifically, Lodash's `fxjs` library) to native JavaScript.
2. `_.filter(numbers, num => num % 3 === 0)` and `numbers.filter(num => num % 3 === 0)`: These are individual test cases within the main benchmark.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Native JavaScript**: This is the built-in JavaScript implementation on the browser's side.
2. **fxjs (Lodash)**: This is a third-party library that provides additional utility functions, including filtering.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Native JavaScript

Pros:

* Built-in to the browser, so no extra download or import needed.
* Can take advantage of browser-specific optimizations and features.
* Typically faster for small, simple operations.

Cons:

* May not be as performant for more complex operations due to overhead from the V8 engine.
* Limited in its functionality compared to third-party libraries like Lodash.

### fxjs (Lodash)

Pros:

* Provides a wide range of utility functions, including filtering.
* Can optimize performance for specific use cases.
* Often provides better support for edge cases and error handling.

Cons:

* Requires an additional download or import, which can add latency.
* May not be as optimized for small, simple operations due to the library's overhead.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string processing, and more. The `fxjs` implementation used in this benchmark is likely a part of the Lodash project.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax (Not Applicable)**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to native JavaScript or Lodash, some popular options include:

* **VanillaJS**: A set of pure JavaScript libraries and utilities that aim to replace many of the built-in functions and methods.
* **Underscore.js**: Another utility library similar to Lodash, but with a different set of features and implementation details.
* **Moment.js**: A popular date and time manipulation library that provides a more robust alternative to native JavaScript's `Date` object.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own pros and cons, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

fxjs vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: fxjs vs native filter

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

fxjs

native filter

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):