Benchmark: native find vs underscore _.find asdfasdf

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.13.3/underscore-min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'joey',  'age': 32 },
  { 'user': 'ross',    'age': 41 },
  { 'user': 'chandler', 'age': 39 }
]

Tests:

array find
// Native users.find(function (o) { return o.user == 'joey'; })
_.find
_.find(users, { 'user': 'joey' })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array find
_.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.

I'll explain the benchmark in detail.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, comparing two approaches: native `Array.prototype.find()` method and the traditional `concat()` method with object destructuring using the ES6 spread operator (`...`). The test also involves using the popular Underscore.js library, which provides a convenience wrapper around the native array methods.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Native Array.prototype.find() Method**: This is the recommended way to find the first element in an array that satisfies a given condition.
2. **Traditional Concat() Method with Object Destructuring (ES6 Spread Operator)**: This approach uses `concat()` to create a new array with elements from another array, and then destructures objects to compare properties.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native Array.prototype.find() Method**:
	* Pros:
		+ More efficient, as it only iterates over the array once.
		+ Does not create new arrays or objects, reducing memory allocation overhead.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower for very large arrays due to the overhead of the `find()` method.
2. **Traditional Concat() Method with Object Destructuring (ES6 Spread Operator)**:
	* Pros:
		+ May be faster for very large arrays since it avoids the overhead of `find()`.
	* Cons:
		+ Creates new arrays and objects, increasing memory allocation overhead.
		+ Less efficient than native `find()` method due to additional iterations.

**Underscore.js Library**

In this benchmark, Underscore.js is used as a convenience wrapper around the native array methods. Specifically, the `_` object provides an alias for the Underscore module, which exports various utility functions, including `_.find()`. The use of Underscore.js allows developers to simplify their code and reuse existing functionality.

**ES6 Spread Operator**

The benchmark uses the ES6 spread operator (`...`) with object destructuring to compare property values. This feature is a new way to extract properties from objects into separate variables. In this context, it's used to destructure objects in a more concise way than traditional `if` statements or loops.

**Other Alternatives**

For those interested in exploring alternative approaches, here are some additional options:

* **Lodash.js**: Another popular utility library that provides an implementation of `_.find()`, which is similar to Underscore.js but with more features and options.
* **Array.prototype.findIndex() Method**: Some browsers support the `findIndex()` method, which is similar to `find()` but returns the index of the first element that satisfies the condition instead of the element itself.

Keep in mind that these alternative approaches may have different trade-offs in terms of performance, memory usage, and code complexity.

Related benchmarks:

native find vs underscore _.find asdfasdf (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: array find vs _.find

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array find

_.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):