Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
test ramda flatten
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
ramda vs native
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var a = [[1,23,5,6,7],[1,2,3,4],[6,4,87]]
Tests:
ramda
R.flatten(a)
native
[].concat.apply([], a)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
ramda
native
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):
I'd be happy to explain what's tested in this benchmark. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is defined by a JSON object that contains the following information: * `Name`: The name of the benchmark, which is "test ramda flatten". * `Description`: An empty string, indicating that there is no description for this benchmark. * `Script Preparation Code` and `Html Preparation Code`: These two sections contain code that is executed before running the benchmark. The first one defines a JavaScript array `a` using nested arrays, which will be used in both test cases. The second section includes an HTML script tag to load the Ramda library (version 0.25.0) for use in the benchmark. **Test Cases** There are two individual test cases: 1. **"ramda"`**: This test case uses the `R.flatten` function from the Ramda library to flatten the nested array `a`. 2. **"native"`**: This test case uses the native JavaScript `concat.apply` method to flatten the same array `a`. **Options Compared** In this benchmark, two options are being compared: * Using the Ramda library (`R.flatten`) to perform the flattening. * Using native JavaScript (`concat.apply`) for the same purpose. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** **Ramda Library (R.flatten)** Pros: * More concise and expressive code * Less prone to errors due to type safety features like static typing * Often provides additional functionality or optimizations compared to native implementations Cons: * May introduce additional overhead due to the use of a library * Requires including an extra script tag in the HTML file, which can affect performance **Native JavaScript (concat.apply)** Pros: * No additional overhead from including a library * Typically faster execution times for simple array operations Cons: * More verbose code and potentially more prone to errors due to lack of type safety features * Less readable or maintainable code, especially for complex flattening operations **Other Considerations** It's worth noting that this benchmark only compares the two test cases on a specific browser and device platform. Results may vary when running the benchmark on different environments. If you want to compare other approaches, such as: * Using `Array.prototype.flat()` (a newer JavaScript method) * Utilizing libraries like Lodash or Immutable.js * Optimized native implementations using SIMD instructions or parallel processing You would need to modify the `Script Preparation Code` and/or `Html Preparation Code` sections of the benchmark definition accordingly. Additionally, if you want to test special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, generators, or Promises, you would need to modify the test cases and script preparation code to incorporate those features.
Related benchmarks:
Ramda head vs Array.[0]
Array (native) vs Ramda
flatten : Array.flat() vs Ramda
concat tester2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?