Benchmark: Ramda isNil vs vanilla JS

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.29.1/ramda.min.js"></script>

Tests:

Ramda
var nullTest = R.isNil(null) var undefinedTest = R.isNil(undefined) var integerTest = R.isNil(1)
Vanilla
var nullTest = [null, undefined].includes(null) var undefinedTest = [null, undefined].includes(undefined) var integerTest = [null, undefined].includes(1)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
Vanilla

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Ramda	2073870.1 Ops/sec
Vanilla	1986157.9 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's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches for checking if a value is null or undefined: Ramda (a functional programming library) versus vanilla JavaScript.

**Options Compared**

There are two test cases:

1. **Ramda**: The first test case uses the `R.isNil()` function from the Ramda library to check if a value is null or undefined.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript**: The second test case uses the `includes()` method (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) to check if an array contains a null, undefined, or integer value.

**Pros and Cons**

**Ramda:**

* Pros:
	+ More concise and expressive code
	+ Built-in functionality for common data processing tasks
	+ Can be more efficient for certain operations (e.g., using `R.isNil()` can avoid unnecessary array checks)
* Cons:
	+ Requires an external library (Ramda) to use its functions
	+ May have a higher overhead due to the need to load and initialize the library

**Vanilla JavaScript:**

* Pros:
	+ No external libraries required
	+ Built-in functionality for most cases (e.g., `includes()` is widely supported)
	+ Can be more straightforward for simple checks
* Cons:
	+ More verbose code compared to Ramda's concise syntax
	+ May require additional checks or workarounds for certain edge cases

**Library and Purpose**

The **Ramda** library provides a set of higher-order functions for functional programming, making it easier to write expressive and composable code. In this benchmark, `R.isNil()` is used to check if a value is null or undefined.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

The test case uses the **ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) feature**: the `includes()` method, which allows checking for presence in an array without using the `indexOf()` method. This syntax is more concise and expressive than traditional loop-based approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few options:

1. **Lodash**: A popular utility library that provides many functional programming helpers, including `isNil()`.
2. **Built-in methods with conditional operators**: You can use conditional expressions (e.g., `x === null || x === undefined`) to achieve similar results without an external library.
3. **Manual array checks**: If you're comfortable with loops and manual array iteration, you can implement the equivalent logic using traditional JavaScript.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and choosing the right one depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Ramda isNil vs vanilla JS (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs Vanilla

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

Vanilla

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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