Benchmark: assocPath vs over lenspath

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var state = { config: { resource: 'domain/on'}}
var { resource } = state.config
var protocol = 'https://'

Tests:

assocPath
R.assocPath( ['resource'], `${protocol}${resource}`, state.config )
over lenspath
R.over( R.lensProp('resource'), R.concat(protocol) )(state.config)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
assocPath
over lenspath

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, compared, and considered.

**What is being tested?**

The test compares two approaches to concatenate strings in JavaScript:

1. `R.assocPath` from the Ramda library: This function applies a path of lenses (a way of accessing nested objects) to an object, returning the result of applying each lens.
2. `R.over` with a `R.lensProp('resource')` and `R.concat(protocol)` combination: This approach uses Ramda's `over` function, which applies a function to an object, modifying it in-place.

**What options are compared?**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

* Using `assocPath` from Ramda
* Using `over lenspath` (a custom implementation that wraps around Ramda's `over` function)

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Using `assocPath`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More concise and expressive code.
		+ Less chance of errors due to explicit path specification.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of creating and applying lenses.
2. **Using `over lenspath`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Can be faster due to a single function application.
	* Cons:
		+ More error-prone code, as the path specification is implicit.
		+ Less readable code for those unfamiliar with Ramda's syntax.

**Other considerations:**

* Both approaches assume that the `state.config` object has a nested structure, where the value of the "resource" key can be concatenated with a string using `protocol`.
* The benchmark does not account for edge cases like null or undefined values in the input data.
* The use of Ramda's library might not be familiar to all developers.

**Library:**

The `R` object is an alias for Ramda, a functional programming library for JavaScript. It provides a set of higher-order functions for working with arrays and objects, including `assocPath`, `over`, and others.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There are no special features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript syntax and libraries like Ramda.

**Benchmark result:**

The latest benchmark results show that the `assocPath` approach outperforms the custom `over lenspath` implementation, with over 3 times more executions per second on a Chrome 66 browser running on Mac OS X 10.13.2. However, it's essential to note that this benchmark may not be representative of all use cases or environments.

**Alternatives:**

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

* **Using template literals**: Instead of concatenating strings using `+`, you could use template literals (e.g., `${expression}`) for more readable and efficient code.
* **Using string interpolation libraries**: Libraries like StringTemplate or Mustache can provide more expressive and flexible ways to concatenate strings, especially when working with complex data structures.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be as concise as using `assocPath` from Ramda, but they can offer better performance and readability in specific use cases.

Related benchmarks:

assocPath vs over lenspath (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: assocPath vs over lenspath

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

assocPath

over lenspath

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):