Benchmark: Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,];

Tests:

Array.prototype.map
data.map(function (number) { return number * 2});
Lodash.map
_.map(data, function (number) { return number * 2});

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.map
Lodash.map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.prototype.map	1467266.8 Ops/sec
Lodash.map	3651284.2 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case on the MeasureThat.net website. The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: `Array.prototype.map` and `Lodash.map`. The purpose of this benchmark is to measure which approach is more efficient in terms of execution time.

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. `Array.prototype.map`: This method is a built-in method of the Array prototype in JavaScript, used to create a new array with the results of applying a provided function on every element in this array.
2. `Lodash.map`: This is a utility function from the Lodash library, also used to transform an array by applying a provided function.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Array.prototype.map**:
	+ Pros: Built-in method, widely supported and well-maintained, no additional dependencies required.
	+ Cons: May be slower than custom implementations due to its complexity and the overhead of checking for the existence of the `map` method on arrays.
* **Lodash.map**:
	+ Pros: Optimized for performance, tested and validated through multiple iterations, and can handle edge cases more efficiently.
	+ Cons: Requires additional dependencies (the Lodash library) and may not be as widely supported or understood.

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, the `lodash.js` library is used to provide the `_.map()` function. Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is commonly available in modern browsers.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to create an alternative benchmark to compare the performance of `Array.prototype.map` and `Lodash.map`, you might consider:

* Using a custom implementation for `map()` that takes advantage of native WebAssembly support.
* Comparing with other map implementations, such as `Array.prototype.forEach()` or `Set`.
* Using a different library like `Ramda` instead of Lodash.

Keep in mind that each alternative would require significant changes to the benchmark and potentially affect its accuracy or relevance.

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map (version: 0)

Approaches performance

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.map

Lodash.map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):