Benchmark: Lodash has vs hasOwnProperty.bind

Script Preparation code:

var person = {name: 'Frederick', lastName: 'Corcino Alejo'};

Tests:

_has
_.has(person, 'name');
hasOwnProperty.bind
Object.hasOwnProperty.bind(person)('name')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_has
hasOwnProperty.bind

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 138 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_has	50583032.0 Ops/sec
hasOwnProperty.bind	149343536.0 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically comparing two approaches for checking if an object has a certain property: `_.has` from Lodash and the `hasOwnProperty.bind` method.

**Approaches compared:**

1. **Lodash _.has**: This function checks if an object has a given key (property name). It returns a boolean value indicating whether the key exists in the object.
2. **`hasOwnProperty.bind` method**: This is a method on the `Object` prototype that checks if an object has a certain property, just like `_.has`. The `bind` part means that this specific version of the method is being called with a particular context (in this case, the `person` object).

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Lodash _.has**:
	* Pros:
		+ Often more readable code, as it's a dedicated function for checking properties.
		+ Can be used in other contexts outside of property checks.
	* Cons:
		+ May incur additional overhead due to the Lodash library.
2. **`hasOwnProperty.bind` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ Built-in and optimized by JavaScript engines, which means it's likely faster and more efficient than a dedicated function like `_.has`.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires using `bind` to achieve the desired behavior, which can add complexity.

In general, the `hasOwnProperty.bind` method is considered a good default choice for property checks, as it's lightweight and optimized. However, if readability or explicitness is more important, `_.has` might be preferred.

**Library:**

The Lodash library is used in this benchmark, which provides various utility functions, including _.has. Lodash aims to provide a consistent and predictable API for common tasks, making code more readable and maintainable.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There's no specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested here. The focus is on the implementation details of property checks in JavaScript.

**Other alternatives:**

In general, other ways to check if an object has a certain property might include:

* Using `in` operator (e.g., `person['name'] in person`)
* Using `for...in` loop (e.g., `for (var key in person) { ... }`)
* Implementing custom checks using bitwise operations or other techniques

However, these alternatives are less common and often less efficient than the built-in methods like `hasOwnProperty.bind`.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash has vs hasOwnProperty.bind (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _has vs hasOwnProperty.bind

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_has

hasOwnProperty.bind

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):