Benchmark: Vanilla vs Ramda

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.29.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  	const shouldNull = Math.random() > 0.5
     data.push(shouldNull ? null : i);
}

Tests:

Ramda
const x = 1; const result = R.isNil(x)
JS
const x = 1; const result = x === null || x === undefined

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
JS

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.

**Understanding the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmark created using MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests two different approaches: Ramda and Vanilla (native JavaScript).

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition consists of two parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This code generates an array of 10,000 elements with random values (either null or integers). It also defines a variable `shouldNull` that randomly determines whether each element should be null or not.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This code includes the external Ramda library (version 0.29.0) via a CDN link.

The script preparation code creates an array of values, and the html preparation code imports the Ramda library for use in the benchmark.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Ramda**: Uses the Ramda library to test if a value is null or undefined.
2. **JS (Vanilla)**: Tests if a value is null or undefined without using any external libraries.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

### Ramda

Pros:

* Provides a standardized way to check for null or undefined values, making the code more readable and maintainable.
* Reduces the likelihood of bugs caused by incorrect null checks.
* Can be more efficient than manual checks in some cases.

Cons:

* Requires an external library, which can add overhead due to loading time and size.
* May not provide the most optimal solution for all use cases (e.g., performance-critical code might not benefit from Ramda's abstraction).

### JS (Vanilla)

Pros:

* No external library is required, reducing overhead due to loading times and sizes.
* Can be more suitable for performance-critical code where every optimization counts.

Cons:

* Requires manual checks, which can lead to errors if not done correctly.
* May result in less readable and maintainable code.

**Other Considerations**

When deciding between Ramda and Vanilla for null or undefined checks, consider the following factors:

* Code readability: If you value clear and concise code, Ramda might be a better choice. However, if you prioritize performance over readability, Vanilla might be more suitable.
* Performance: In most cases, Ramda's abstraction does not provide significant performance benefits. Vanilla checks might be faster due to reduced overhead from loading an external library.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

Related benchmarks:

Vanilla vs Ramda (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs JS

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

JS

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):