Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
ANOTHER TEST value_of_test111
(version: 0)
lodash vs es6
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs es6
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)"></script>
Tests:
lodash
_.isNumber(3);
es6
3 != null && typeof (3).valueOf() === 'number'
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash
es6
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 JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **What is tested?** The provided benchmark measures the performance of two approaches: Lodash (a popular JavaScript utility library) and ES6 (the latest version of the ECMAScript standard). The benchmark consists of two test cases: 1. `_.isNumber(3);` - This test case checks if a given value is a number using Lodash's `isNumber` function. 2. `3 != null && typeof (3).valueOf() === 'number'` - This test case checks if the value `3` is not null and is a number using ES6 syntax. **Options compared** The benchmark compares two options: 1. **Lodash**: A JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array manipulation, and more. 2. **ES6**: The latest version of the ECMAScript standard, which includes features like arrow functions, classes, and template literals. **Pros and Cons** * **Lodash**: + Pros: Provides a wide range of utility functions that can be useful in many scenarios. It's well-maintained and widely adopted. + Cons: Adds extra overhead due to the library itself and its dependencies. Can make code more complex if not used carefully. * **ES6**: + Pros: Native JavaScript features that don't add extra overhead. Provides a clean and concise syntax. + Cons: May require additional time to learn new syntax and features. **Library usage** In the benchmark, Lodash is used in its `isNumber` function. This function takes a value as an argument and returns a boolean indicating whether the value is a number. The library provides this function to simplify common tasks. **Special JavaScript feature** The test case `3 != null && typeof (3).valueOf() === 'number'` uses ES6 syntax, specifically: * The ternary operator (`3 != null && ...`) * The `typeof` operator with the `valueOf()` method These features are part of ES6 and provide a concise way to express conditional logic. **Other alternatives** If you're interested in alternative approaches or libraries for similar functionality, here are some options: 1. **Mocha**: A popular JavaScript testing framework that can be used for benchmarking. 2. **Benchmark.js**: Another benchmarking library specifically designed for JavaScript performance testing. 3. **ES6-only libraries**: * `moment.js` (for date manipulation) * `lodash-es` (a subset of Lodash optimized for ES6 use) + These libraries can provide similar functionality to Lodash but with a smaller footprint and without the extra overhead. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific needs and preferences.
Related benchmarks:
Comparing performance of native .length and Lodash _.isEmpty
isNumber vs typeof
lodash get vs es6
lodash parseint vs parseInt
lodash vs es6 test
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?