Benchmark: ramda vs javascript (improved)

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:



var propertyCell = {
    condition: {
        field: {
            comparator: "IS_TIMERANGE",
            end: [{
                value: 1
            }]
        }
    }
};

var data = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 100000; i++) {
    data.push(propertyCell);
}

Tests:

regular javascript
const result = new Array(); for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) { const array = propertyCell?.condition?.field?.end || []; const propertyValueLast = array[array.length - 1]; const propertyValue = propertyValueLast.value result.push(propertyValue) }
ramda
const result = new Array(); for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) { const array = R.pathOr([], ["condition", "field", "end"], propertyCell) const propertyValueLast = R.last(R.pathOr([], ["condition", "field", "end"], propertyCell)); const propertyValue = R.prop("value", propertyValueLast); result.push(propertyValue) }

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	198.4 Ops/sec
ramda	19.7 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, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark tests two approaches to access the last element of an array in JavaScript: using regular JavaScript and Ramda (a functional programming library).

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a JSON object `propertyCell` with a nested structure:
```json
{
  "condition": {
    "field": {
      "comparator": "IS_TIMERANGE",
      "end": [
        { "value": 1 }
      ]
    }
  }
}
```
This object is repeated 100,000 times to create a large dataset.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes the Ramda library:
```html
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.27.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
```
This suggests that the benchmark is designed to compare the performance of regular JavaScript with Ramda.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Regular JavaScript**
```javascript
const result = new Array();
for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
  const array = propertyCell?.condition?.field?.end || [];
  const propertyValueLast = array[array.length - 1];
  const propertyValue = propertyValueLast.value;

result.push(propertyValue);
}
```
This code uses the `..` operator to access nested properties and then accesses the last element of the array using `[array.length - 1]`.

2. **Ramda**
```javascript
const result = new Array();
for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
  const array = R.pathOr([], ["condition", "field", "end"], propertyCell);
  const propertyValueLast = R.last(R.pathOr([], ["condition", "field", "end"], propertyCell));
  const propertyValue = R.prop("value", propertyValueLast);

result.push(propertyValue);
}
```
This code uses Ramda's `R.pathOr` and `R.last` functions to access the nested properties.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Regular JavaScript**
	* Pros:
		+ Simple and well-known syntax.
	* Cons:
		+ Error-prone due to the use of `?.` for optional chaining, which can lead to unexpected behavior if not used correctly.
		+ Less efficient than Ramda's approach, as it requires manual array indexing.
2. **Ramda**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and readable syntax.
		+ Efficient, as it uses optimized functions from the Ramda library.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires knowledge of the Ramda library and its functions.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark measures the execution speed (in executions per second) for each test case, which suggests that the goal is to determine which approach is faster.
* The use of a large dataset (100,000 iterations) ensures that any performance differences between the two approaches are significant.
* The benchmark results show a wide gap in performance between the two approaches, with Ramda being significantly faster.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to accessing array elements in JavaScript, here are some options:

1. **ES6 array methods**: You can use modern array methods like `array.slice()`, `array.filter()`, or `array.reduce()` to access array elements.
2. **Lodash**: Lodash is another popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a range of functions for working with arrays, including accessing elements.
3. **Native Array.prototype methods**: You can use native array prototype methods like `array.at()`, `array.lastIndexOf()`, or `array.indexOf()` to access array elements.

Keep in mind that each approach has its pros and cons, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

ramda vs javascript (improved) (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):