Benchmark: Lodash Vs Native JS

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(1000000).fill({ filtering: true, mapping: 42 });

Tests:

Lodash
_.map(_.filter(data, 'filtering'), 'mapping')
Native
data.filter(({ filtering }) => filtering).map(({ mapping }) => mapping)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested, compared, and its pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript library that provides utility functions for various tasks, including array manipulation.
2. **Native JS**: The built-in JavaScript implementation without any external libraries.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code creates a large dataset (`data`) using an array comprehension:
```javascript
var data = Array(1000000).fill({ filtering: true, mapping: 42 });
```
This dataset is used as input for both benchmarking functions.

**Html Preparation Code**

An external library (Lodash) is included in the HTML file:
```html
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>
```
The `_.map` and `_.filter` functions from Lodash are used to process the dataset.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Lodash**: `_._map(_.filter(data, 'filtering'), 'mapping')`
This function uses Lodash's `_.map` to apply a transformation to the filtered data.
```javascript
// Lodash implementation:
function _map(arr, cb) {
  return arr.map(cb);
}

// Filtered data:
const filteredData = _.filter(data, 'filtering');

// Mapping:
const mappedData = _.map(filteredData, 'mapping');
```
2. **Native JS**: `data.filter(({ filtering }) => filtering).map(({ mapping }) => mapping)`
This function uses the built-in JavaScript array methods to filter and map the data directly.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash (with external library)**:
	+ Pros: Easier to read and write, especially for complex transformations.
	+ Cons: Adds an extra dependency, potentially slower due to overhead of loading the library.
* **Native JS (without external library)**:
	+ Pros: No dependencies, faster execution.
	+ Cons: More verbose and error-prone code.

**Other Considerations**

In this specific benchmark, the performance difference between Lodash and Native JS is significant. However, in other scenarios, the choice might depend on factors like:

* Code readability vs. performance
* Complexity of transformations
* Project dependencies and ecosystem

As for special JavaScript features or syntax used, none are explicitly mentioned in the provided code snippets.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to Lodash that can be used as a native implementation would include other popular libraries like:

* `Array.prototype.map` and `Array.prototype.filter`
* `reduce` method
* Other utility functions from specific libraries (e.g., `lodash-es`, `ramda`)

Related benchmarks:

Lodash Vs Native JS (version: 0)

Performance comparison

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Native

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):