Benchmark: compat vs filter

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var data = [0, 1, false, 2, '', 3];

Tests:

Lodash
_.compact(data);
Native
data.filter(Boolean);

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.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: using the `_.compact()` function from the Lodash library versus using the native `filter(Boolean)` method. The goal is to determine which approach is faster on modern JavaScript engines.

**Script Preparation Code**

The script preparation code defines an array `data` containing various types of values, including numbers, booleans, and empty strings.

```javascript
var data = [0, 1, false, 2, '', 3];
```

This array will be used as input for the benchmark test cases.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library from a CDN:

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

This suggests that the benchmark is using the Lodash library in its test cases.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. `_.compact(data);` - This test case uses the Lodash `compact()` function to remove empty values from the input array.
2. `data.filter(Boolean);` - This test case uses the native `filter()` method with a callback function that returns `true` for non-empty values.

**Comparison**

The two test cases compare the performance of using a library (`Lodash`) versus using the native JavaScript method (`filter(Boolean)`).

**Pros and Cons**

* **Using Lodash:**
	+ Pros:
		- Provides a more concise and readable way to remove empty values from an array.
		- May offer better maintainability and reusability of code.
	+ Cons:
		- Adds additional overhead due to the need to load the library.
		- May introduce performance differences compared to using native methods.
* **Using Native `filter(Boolean)`:**
	+ Pros:
		- Typically faster since it doesn't require loading a library.
		- Often preferred by developers who want to avoid adding external dependencies.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more code and may be less readable for some developers.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and functional programming. In this benchmark, the `compact()` function is used to remove empty values from an array. The `_.` notation is a shorthand way to access functions within the Lodash library.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of using a library versus a native method.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches, here are some options:

* Using other utility libraries like Underscore.js or Moment.js.
* Implementing your own custom function to remove empty values from an array.
* Using a different data structure, such as a Set or Map, that may offer better performance characteristics.

Keep in mind that the choice of library or native method often depends on the specific use case and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

compat vs filter (version: 0)

dsjfhsdkhfgj

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):