Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Atlas - Lodash vs Native Part Deux
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Lodash each vs Native forEach vs Lodash map vs Native map
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
window.range = _.range(0, 500);
Tests:
Lodash each
const r = []; _.each(range, a => { r.push(a * a); });
Native forEach
const r = []; range.forEach(a => { r.push(a * a); });
Lodash map
const r = _.map(range, a => a * a);
Native map
const r = range.map(a => a * a);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (4)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Lodash each
Native forEach
Lodash map
Native map
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):
**Overview of the Benchmark** MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark definition and test cases measure the performance of two approaches: using the Lodash library's `each` and `map` functions versus native JavaScript `forEach` and `map` functions. **Tested Options** The benchmark compares four options: 1. **Lodash `each`**: Uses the `_` variable (a reference to the Lodash library) and calls `_.each(range, a => { r.push(a * a); })`. 2. **Native `forEach`**: Calls `range.forEach(a => { r.push(a * a); })`. 3. **Lodash `map`**: Uses the `_` variable and calls `_.map(range, a => a * a)`. 4. **Native `map`**: Calls `range.map(a => a * a)`. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **Lodash `each` and `map`**: * Pros: Encapsulates the loop logic in a reusable function, can be more concise. * Cons: Requires an additional library dependency (Lodash), may introduce overhead due to the extra function call. 2. **Native `forEach` and `map`**: * Pros: No external dependencies, native functions are optimized for performance. * Cons: May require more boilerplate code, less concise. **Library and Syntax** The benchmark uses the Lodash library, which provides a set of functional programming utilities. The `_` variable is used to reference the Lodash library. Note that the benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax; it only focuses on comparing the performance of different loop approaches. **Other Considerations** When deciding between using a library like Lodash and native JavaScript functions, consider factors such as: * Performance: Native functions might be slightly faster due to lower overhead. * Code readability and maintainability: Reusable functions like Lodash's `each` and `map` can improve code clarity. * Additional dependencies: Using external libraries like Lodash may introduce extra dependencies. **Alternatives** If you don't want to use MeasureThat.net, other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript performance include: 1. **Benchmark.js**: A lightweight, modular benchmarking library. 2. **js-benchmark**: A simple, command-line-based benchmarking tool. 3. ** Benchmark-Runner**: A Node.js module that allows creating and running benchmarks. Keep in mind that each alternative has its own strengths and weaknesses, and you should choose the one that best fits your needs.
Related benchmarks:
_.isEmpty vs Array.length
isFunction vs typeof function 6
lodash dropRigth vs native pop
isEmpty vs. vanilla
lodash isFunction vs native
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?