Benchmark: Native vs. Lodash ".find"

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

const getRandomChar = () => String.fromCharCode(Math.floor(Math.random() * 26) + 97);
const getRandomString = () => Array(Math.floor(Math.random() * 10) + 1).fill().map(getRandomChar).join('');

var values = Array(1000000).fill().map(getRandomString);
var valueToFind = values[650249];

Tests:

Native Array.find
const nativeFoundValue = values.find((val) => val === valueToFind);
Lodash _.find
const lodashFoundValue = _.find(values, (val) => val === valueToFind);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native Array.find
Lodash _.find

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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases: Native Array.find and Lodash _.find. These tests compare the speed of the native JavaScript Array.find method with the equivalent method from the popular utility library, Lodash.

**Options compared:**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **Native JavaScript Array.find**: This method is part of the standard JavaScript language specification and is used to find the first element in an array that satisfies a provided condition.
2. **Lodash _.find**: This method is part of the Lodash library and provides a more functional programming style for finding elements in arrays.

**Pros and cons:**

**Native Array.find:**

Pros:

* Built-in, no additional dependencies required
* Likely to be optimized by JavaScript engines
* May have better performance due to lower overhead

Cons:

* May not provide the same level of readability or maintainability as Lodash's implementation
* Could be less flexible or customizable compared to a library-based approach

**Lodash _.find:**

Pros:

* Provides a more functional programming style, which can make code easier to read and understand
* Often includes additional functionality, such as handling null or undefined values
* Can be easily extended or customized with plugins

Cons:

* Requires an additional dependency (the Lodash library)
* May have higher overhead due to the need to import and instantiate the library
* Could result in slower performance compared to native implementation

**Library consideration:**

In this case, Lodash _.find uses a more functional programming style, which can be beneficial for readability and maintainability. However, the added overhead of using an external library may impact performance.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these tests. They rely on standard JavaScript language features.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking for alternative methods to find elements in arrays, some popular options include:

* **Array.prototype.some()**: Similar to Array.find, but returns true as soon as the condition is met.
* **Array.prototype.every()**: Returns true if all elements in the array satisfy the condition.
* **Manual iteration using loops**: This approach involves iterating over the array manually using traditional loop constructs.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics or trade-offs compared to the native Array.find and Lodash _.find methods.

Related benchmarks:

Native vs. Lodash ".find" (version: 0)

Comparing the speed of the native JavaScript Array.find to Lodash _.find

Comparing performance of: Native Array.find vs Lodash _.find

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native Array.find

Lodash _.find

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):