Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Lodash vs Native v3,0,0
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Lodash vs Native
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@3.0.0/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var value = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}, {d: 6542321}, {e: 13123531}]
Tests:
Lodash
_.each(value, function(v,i) {console.log(v)})
Native
value.forEach(function(v,i) {console.log(v)})
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
I'd be happy to explain the benchmark in detail. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches: using the Lodash library (specifically version 3.0.0) and the native JavaScript `forEach` method, on an array of five objects containing various values. The goal is to measure which approach executes faster when logging each value in the array. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares the performance of two options: 1. **Lodash**: Using the Lodash library's `each` function to iterate over the array and log each value. 2. **Native (forEach)**: Using the native JavaScript `forEach` method to iterate over the array and log each value. **Pros and Cons** **Lodash**: * Pros: + More concise code: The Lodash `each` function is a single line of code, making it easier to write and maintain. + Built-in utility functions: Lodash provides a variety of useful functions that can simplify code in other parts of the project. * Cons: + Additional library dependency: Using an external library adds an extra layer of complexity and potential dependencies. + Overhead: Loading the Lodash library may introduce additional overhead due to the HTTP request and parsing. **Native (forEach)**: * Pros: + Zero-overhead: The native `forEach` method does not require loading any additional libraries or overhead. + Native performance: Native code is typically faster than JavaScript code, especially for simple iterations like this one. * Cons: + More verbose code: The native `forEach` method requires a separate function declaration and callback definition, making the code more verbose. **Library Used** The Lodash library is used in this benchmark. Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as: * Iteration (e.g., `each`, `forEach`, `map`) * String manipulation * Object manipulation * Array manipulation Lodash's primary purpose is to provide a set of reusable, predictable, and fast functions for common tasks, making it easier for developers to write maintainable and efficient code. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and libraries (in this case, Lodash). **Alternatives** Other alternatives to using Lodash could include: * Using the native `forEach` method with a separate function declaration * Using other iteration methods like `map` or `reduce` * Implementing a custom loop or iterator using pure JavaScript * Utilizing other libraries that provide similar functionality, such as Underscore.js or Ramda. Keep in mind that each of these alternatives would have its own pros and cons, and the choice ultimately depends on the specific use case and requirements.
Related benchmarks:
lodash.values vs Object.values
lodash .forEach vs JS forEach
Native Object.values().some() vs lodash _.some()
JS ForEach Tests
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?