Benchmark: ramda vs javascript 2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.27.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
    data.push({
        counter: i
    });
}

var condition = {
    field: {
        comparator: "IS_TIMERANGE"
    }
};

var propertyCell = {
    condition: {
        field: {
            comparator: "IS_TIMERANGE",
            end: [{
                value: 1
            }]
        }
    }
};

function isOdd(num) {
    return num % 2 === 1;
}

function square(num) {
    return num * num;
}

function lessThanThreeDigits(num) {
    return num.toString().length < 3;
}

var expected = data.map(o => o.counter).filter(isOdd).map(square).filter(lessThanThreeDigits);

Tests:

regular javascript
const result = new Array(); for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) { const counter = data[i].counter; const propertyValue = propertyCell.condition.field.end[0].value; if (isOdd(counter + propertyValue)){ const r = square(counter); if (lessThanThreeDigits(r)) { result.push(r); } } }
ramda
const result = new Array(); for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) { const counter = R.propOr("", "counter", data); const propertyValueLast = R.pathOr([], ["condition", "field", "end", 0, "value"], propertyCell); if (isOdd(counter + propertyValueLast)){ const r = square(counter); if (lessThanThreeDigits(r)) { result.push(r); } } }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
regular javascript
ramda

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
regular javascript	53.7 Ops/sec
ramda	17.4 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is tested on it.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches: regular JavaScript (without any libraries) and Ramda, a functional programming library for JavaScript.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script prepares an array `data` with 100,000 objects, each containing a `counter` property. It also defines a condition `condition` with a comparator "IS_TIMERANGE" on the `field` object, which is nested within another object. Additionally, it defines a `propertyCell` object that contains the same condition and a `value` property.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **Regular JavaScript**: This test case uses vanilla JavaScript to filter the data array based on the condition.
2. **Ramda**: This test case uses Ramda's functional programming library to achieve the same filtering operation as the regular JavaScript test case.

**Comparison**

Both tests aim to find all elements in the `data` array that meet the condition and have a counter value that, when added to the corresponding property value from `propertyCell`, results in an odd number. The tests then square this combined value and filter out those with three or more digits. The resulting values are stored in an array.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

1. **Regular JavaScript**: This approach uses vanilla JavaScript, which is a imperative programming paradigm.
2. **Ramda**: This approach uses Ramda's functional programming library, which provides a declarative and expressive way to manipulate data.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Regular JavaScript:**

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement for developers familiar with imperative programming
* Typically faster execution since it doesn't require creating function calls or data structures

Cons:

* Can be slower than functional programming approaches due to the overhead of loops and conditional statements
* May lead to code that's harder to maintain and reason about due to its imperative nature

**Ramda:**

Pros:

* Provides a more concise and declarative way to manipulate data, making it easier to write maintainable code
* Can be faster than regular JavaScript since it leverages optimized C++ code under the hood

Cons:

* May require more time to learn and understand due to its functional programming paradigm
* Requires additional dependencies (Ramda) that need to be included in the project

**Library: Ramda**

Ramda is a functional programming library for JavaScript. It provides a set of higher-order functions that can be used to manipulate data in a declarative way.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax: None mentioned**

There's no specific special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. Both tests use standard JavaScript features and syntax.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following:

* **Lodash**: Another popular functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of utility functions.
* **Functional JavaScript libraries like Immutable.js or Sails.js**: These libraries provide additional tools and abstractions for working with immutable data structures and concurrent programming.
* **TypeScript or other statically-typed languages**: If you're interested in exploring alternative languages, TypeScript is a popular choice that can help you catch errors at compile-time and improve code maintainability.

I hope this explanation helps!

Related benchmarks:

ramda vs javascript 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: regular javascript vs ramda

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

regular javascript

ramda

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):