Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
xfhrghdgh
(version: 0)
dfhdghdgh
Comparing performance of:
Lodash vs Native
Created:
7 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark JSON and explore what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons, and other considerations. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two individual test cases: 1. `_.compact(data);` - This test case uses Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library. 2. `data.filter(Boolean);` - This test case is native to JavaScript, meaning it doesn't rely on any external libraries. **Options compared:** In this benchmark, we have two options being compared: 1. **Lodash**: The first test case uses the `_.compact()` function from Lodash to remove empty elements from an array. 2. **Native**: The second test case uses the built-in `filter(Boolean)` method in JavaScript to achieve the same result. **Pros and Cons:** **Lodash ( _.compact(data) )** Pros: * More concise and expressive code * Provides a clear and consistent API for removing empty elements * Often preferred by developers due to its widespread adoption and community support Cons: * Adds an external dependency, which may not be desirable in all scenarios * May have a larger footprint compared to the native implementation * Requires explicit inclusion of Lodash in the project **Native ( data.filter(Boolean) )** Pros: * No external dependencies or overhead * Lightweight and efficient implementation * Often preferred for its simplicity and conciseness Cons: * May require more boilerplate code to achieve the same result * Less explicit about what it's doing, making it potentially harder to understand for some developers * May have performance implications due to the use of `Boolean` as a filter predicate **Other considerations:** * The use of Lodash in this benchmark highlights the importance of considering external dependencies and libraries when writing benchmarks. * The native implementation demonstrates the benefits of simplicity, conciseness, and efficiency in code. * In general, it's essential to consider both performance and maintainability when evaluating these trade-offs. **Library description:** The `lodash` library is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. Lodash is widely adopted in the developer community due to its simplicity, expressiveness, and consistency. **Special JS feature or syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches to achieving a specific result: using an external library (Lodash) versus relying on native JavaScript functions. I hope this explanation helps software engineers understand the context and implications of this benchmark!
Related benchmarks:
ramda vs lodash/fp vs native
ramda vs lodash/fp vs native again
instanceOf Lodash vs Vanilla
Map (Lodash vs Lodash/fp vs Immutable) new versions
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?