Benchmark: _.isEmpty vs Array.length

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.array = []

for (var i = 0, len = 100; i < len; i++) {
  array.push(i);
}

Tests:

_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty(window.array);
Array.length
window.array.length === 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.isEmpty
Array.length

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 break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark we're analyzing involves comparing the performance of two approaches: using the `_.isEmpty` function from the Lodash library, and directly checking if an array has a length of 0.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates an empty array with 100 elements, which is used as input for both test cases:
```javascript
window.array = []
for (var i = 0, len = 100; i < len; i++) {
  array.push(i);
}
```
This code sets up a large array that will be used to measure the performance of each approach.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library version 4.17.4:
```html
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>
```
This library is used by the `_.isEmpty` function.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **_.isEmpty**: This test case uses the `_.isEmpty` function from Lodash to check if the `window.array` has a length of 0.
2. **Array.length**: This test case directly checks if the length of the `window.array` is equal to 0.

**Performance Comparison**

The benchmark measures the performance of both approaches by executing each test case multiple times (the exact number is not specified in the provided data). The results show that:

* The `Array.length` approach has a significantly lower execution time (approximately 1/2) compared to the `_.isEmpty` approach.
* The `_.isEmpty` approach uses the Lodash library, which likely introduces additional overhead.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**_isEmpty**

Pros:

* Simplifies code: Using a pre-built function can simplify code and reduce the risk of errors.
* Convenience: It's easy to use and doesn't require manual implementation.

Cons:

* Overhead: The Lodash library adds overhead, which can affect performance.

**Array.length**

Pros:

* Low overhead: This approach has minimal overhead since it only checks a single property (length) on the array object.
* Native JavaScript: It uses native JavaScript functionality, which is typically faster than relying on libraries.

Cons:

* More complex code: Directly checking array length can make code more verbose and error-prone.

**Other Considerations**

* **Scalability**: For very large arrays or performance-critical applications, the `Array.length` approach might be a better choice due to its lower overhead.
* **Code readability**: The `_isEmpty` approach is often considered more readable since it clearly conveys intent. However, for very small arrays or low-latency requirements, the `Array.length` approach can be a better fit.

**Alternative Approaches**

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

* Using native JavaScript methods like `array.every()` or `array.some()` instead of relying on Lodash's `_isEmpty`.
* Implementing your own custom implementation for checking array emptiness using bitwise operations (e.g., `array.length === 0`).

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not offer significant performance gains over the original approaches, but they can provide insight into optimizing JavaScript code.

Related benchmarks:

_.isEmpty vs Array.length (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.isEmpty vs Array.length

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

Array.length

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):