Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Ramda map vs Array.map
(version: 0)
measures the speed of ramda's map vs Array's native map
Comparing performance of:
Ramda vs Array (native)
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
function double(n) { return n*2; } var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30];
Tests:
Ramda
R.map(double, data);
Array (native)
data.map(double);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Ramda
Array (native)
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome Mobile 143 on Android
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
Ramda
5782459.0 Ops/sec
Array (native)
4339552.5 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! The provided benchmark compares two approaches: `Array.map` (also known as the native map function) and `R.map` from the Ramda library. **What are they compared?** In this benchmark, both `Array.map` and `R.map` are applied to a large array (`data`) with 30 elements. The `map` function takes two arguments: a callback function (in this case, `double(n)`) that returns a new value for each element in the array. **Options being compared** Here's a brief overview of what's being tested: 1. **Native Array.map**: This is the built-in map function provided by JavaScript engines like V8 (used by Chrome and Node.js). It's optimized for performance. 2. **R.map from Ramda library**: Ramda is a functional programming library that provides an implementation of the `map` function. While it's based on the native implementation, it adds some extra features and sugar. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: Native Array.map: Pros: * Optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine * Generally faster than Ramda's implementation * Familiarity and ease of use for developers who already know `Array.map` Cons: * Limited to native functions only (no additional features or sugar) * May not be as readable or expressive as Ramda's implementation R.map from Ramda library: Pros: * Additional features and sugar, such as higher-order functions and currying * Can lead to more concise and expressive code * Can improve maintainability and readability in certain situations Cons: * Slower than the native `Array.map` function due to overhead from the JavaScript engine * Requires an additional library (Ramda) which may not be familiar to all developers **Library explanation** In this benchmark, Ramda is a functional programming library that provides an implementation of the `map` function. Its purpose is to provide a more expressive and concise way to perform functions on arrays. **Special JS feature or syntax** There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark beyond what's already mentioned (e.g., `Array.map`, Ramda's `R.map`).
Related benchmarks:
Ramda map vs Array.map
Ramda map vs Array.map vs for loop
Ramda map vs Array.map vs for
Ramda map vs Array.map anonymous function
Ramda map vs Array.map anonymous function (not arrow)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?