Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Ramda range vs Array.from
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Native vs Ramda
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.28.0/ramda.js"></script>
Tests:
Native
Array.from({length: 87 - 55})
Ramda
R.range(55, 87);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Native
Ramda
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 119 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=487130" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Ramda
4.5M/s
Native
569K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Ramda
4,549,312 Ops/sec
Native
568,719 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons. **What is being tested?** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to create an array with a specific length: using JavaScript's built-in `Array.from` method (known as "Native") versus using Ramda's `R.range` function. **Options being compared** There are two options being compared: 1. **Native**: Using JavaScript's built-in `Array.from` method, which takes an object literal with a `length` property and creates an array from it. 2. **Ramda**: Using Ramda's `R.range` function, which generates an array of numbers within a specified range. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Native (Array.from)**: * Pros: + Built-in JavaScript method, so no additional library dependencies are required. + Likely to be optimized for performance by the browser engine. * Cons: + May require creating an object literal with a specific `length` property, which can be cumbersome or error-prone. 2. **Ramda (R.range)**: * Pros: + Convenient and concise syntax for generating arrays of numbers within a range. + May be less prone to errors due to the more explicit nature of the function call. * Cons: + Requires including an additional library dependency (Ramda). + May not be optimized for performance by the browser engine, as it's a separate function call. **Library and purpose** The Ramda library is a popular JavaScript functional programming library that provides various functions for working with data. In this case, `R.range` is used to generate an array of numbers within a specified range. **Special JS feature or syntax (none mentioned)** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. **Other alternatives** If you wanted to test alternative approaches to creating arrays with a specific length, some options might include: * Using the `Array` constructor and specifying the length directly: `new Array(87 - 55)` * Using a loop to create an array: `[...Array(87 - 55).keys()]` * Using a library like Lodash (not mentioned in this benchmark), which provides a similar `range` function Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or trade-offs compared to the Native and Ramda approaches.
Related benchmarks
ramda clone vs spread
Last element (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?