Benchmark: lodash flow vs ramda pipe v2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [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];
var isOdd = n => n % 2 === 1;

Tests:

ramda
R.pipe(R.map(R.inc), R.filter(isOdd), R.take(5), R.last);
lodash
_.flow(_.map(x => x + 1), _.filter(isOdd), _.take(5), _.last);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ramda
lodash

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.

**Benchmarking Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The goal is to compare the performance of different approaches, libraries, or syntax features in a controlled environment.

The provided benchmark definition consists of two test cases:

1. `R.pipe(R.map(R.inc), R.filter(isOdd), R.take(5), R.last);` for Ramda
2. `_.flow(_.map(x => x + 1), _.filter(isOdd), _.take(5), _.last);` for Lodash

These two test cases are designed to exercise the `pipe()` and `flow()` functions, which are common methods used in functional programming languages.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of Ramda's `pipe()` function with Lodash's `flow()` function. Both functions serve the same purpose: to compose multiple functions together to create a new function that applies each function in sequence.

Here are the pros and cons of these approaches:

### Ramda's `pipe()`

Pros:

* More concise and expressive syntax
* Allows for easier function chaining
* Built-in support for currying and partial application

Cons:

* Can be less intuitive for developers unfamiliar with functional programming concepts
* May require additional setup or configuration for complex use cases

### Lodash's `flow()`

Pros:

* More explicit and verbose syntax, making it easier to understand and debug
* Supports more advanced function composition techniques
* Built-in support for currying and partial application

Cons:

* Less concise and expressive than Ramda's `pipe()`
* May require additional setup or configuration for complex use cases

**Library Usage**

The benchmark uses the following libraries:

1. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a set of higher-order functions for composing and transforming data.
2. **Lodash**: A utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for working with arrays, objects, and more.

In both test cases, the `isOdd` function is used as a predicate to filter out even numbers. This function is defined using an arrow function syntax (`n => n % 2 === 1`) in Lodash's example, while Ramda uses its built-in `isOdd` function.

**Special JavaScript Features**

The benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is necessary for the test cases. However, it's worth noting that the use of arrow functions (`=>`) and template literals (`\r\n`) are modern JavaScript features that may require additional support in older browsers or environments.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to functional programming libraries, here are a few options:

1. **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library for JavaScript that provides many of the same functions as Lodash.
2. **Cypress**: A testing framework that also includes some functional programming features and utilities.
3. **Esnext**: A set of proposed standards for JavaScript that include new features and syntax elements, such as arrow functions and template literals.

In conclusion, the benchmark is comparing the performance of Ramda's `pipe()` function with Lodash's `flow()` function, highlighting the trade-offs between concise expression vs explicit syntax.

Related benchmarks:

lodash flow vs ramda pipe v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: ramda vs lodash

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

ramda

lodash

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):