Benchmark: Ramda vs lodash latest

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.30.1/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = _.range(10000).map(function(i) {
  return {
    counter: i
  }
});

function isOdd(num) {
  return num % 2 === 1;
}

function square(num) {
  return num * num;
}

function lessThanThreeDigits(num) {
  return num.toString().length < 3;
}

Tests:

Loadsh
var result = _.chain(data) .pick('counter') .filter(isOdd) .map(square) .filter(lessThanThreeDigits) .value();
Ramda without currying
var result = R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits, R.map(square, R.filter(isOdd, R.pluck('counter', data))));
Ramda with test case
var result = R.pipe( R.pluck('counter'), R.filter(isOdd), R.map(square), R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits) )(data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Loadsh
Ramda without currying
Ramda with test case

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/141.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 141 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Loadsh

1.3M/s

Ramda without currying

2K/s

Ramda with test case

2K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Loadsh	1,265,367 Ops/sec
Ramda without currying	2,296 Ops/sec
Ramda with test case	2,078 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring performance differences between two popular JavaScript libraries, Ramda and Lodash, is crucial for developers who need to optimize their code.

**Benchmark Test Case Analysis**

The provided benchmark test cases use both Lodash and Ramda to perform similar operations on a dataset. The goal is to determine which library performs better in terms of execution speed.

**Lodash (latest version)**

* **`_.chain(data)`: Creates a new chainable object from the input data.
* **`.pick('counter')`: Selects only the 'counter' property from each element in the chain.
* **`.filter(isOdd)`: Filters out elements where `isOdd` returns false.
* **`.map(square)`: Applies the square function to each remaining element.
* **`.filter(lessThanThreeDigits)`: Filters out elements with more than 3 digits.
* **`.value()`: Returns the final filtered array.

The test case using Lodash's pipeline approach (`var result = _.chain(data)...`) tests how efficient it is to use a series of functions chained together.

**Ramda**

* Ramda is a functional programming library for JavaScript.
* The `R.filter` function filters out elements based on a predicate function.
* The `R.map` function applies a given function to each element in the input data.
* The `R.pluck` function returns an array of selected values from an object or array.
* The `R.pipe` function is used to compose multiple functions together.

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Ramda without currying**: Tests how Ramda performs when not using its curried function syntax (e.g., `var result = R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits, ...)`).
2. **Ramda with test case**: Tests the efficiency of using Ramda's pipeline approach (`var result = R.pipe(...)(data)`) to perform a series of operations.
3. **Lodash (latest version)**: Tests how efficient Lodash is when using its chained function syntax.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash**
	+ Pros:
		- Well-established library with good support for various use cases.
		- Easy to understand and use, especially for developers familiar with JavaScript.
	+ Cons:
		- Chained functions might lead to a loss of performance due to the overhead of creating new objects.
* **Ramda**
	+ Pros:
		- Designed for functional programming and provides an efficient way to compose operations using `R.pipe`.
		- Can be more concise than Lodash's chained syntax, especially when dealing with multiple operations.
	+ Cons:
		- Might require additional learning for developers unfamiliar with functional programming concepts.

**Other Considerations**

* **Currying**: Ramda uses currying (partial application of functions) to improve performance and make its API more expressive. However, this approach can be less intuitive for some developers.
* **Object creation overhead**: Both Lodash and Ramda create new objects when using their chained function syntax. This overhead might impact performance, especially when dealing with large datasets.

**Benchmark Results**

The provided benchmark results show the execution speed of each library on a specific test case. The RawUAString values indicate the browser and device platform used to run the tests.

Ramda vs lodash latest (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Loadsh vs Ramda without currying vs Ramda with test case`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Loadsh

Ramda without currying

Ramda with test case

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Ramda vs lodash latest (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Loadsh vs Ramda without currying vs Ramda with test case

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Loadsh

Ramda without currying

Ramda with test case

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Comparing performance of: `Loadsh vs Ramda without currying vs Ramda with test case`