Benchmark: lodash fp vs lodash vs vanilla vs ramda

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)'></script>
<script src="//cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/ramda@0.25.0/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array =  [...Array(6000)].fill('l')
var reducer = (r, x) => r + x

// Use `noConflict` to restore the pre-fp variant.
var fp = _.noConflict();

Tests:

Lodash
_.reduce(array, reducer, 0);
Lodash FP
fp.reduce(reducer, 0)(array)
Vanilla
array.reduce(reducer, 0)
Ramda
R.reduce(reducer, 0, array)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Lodash FP
Vanilla
Ramda

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:138.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/138.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 138 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Vanilla

42K/s

Lodash

37K/s

Lodash FP

36K/s

Ramda

31K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Vanilla	41,964 Ops/sec
Lodash	37,040 Ops/sec
Lodash FP	35,866 Ops/sec
Ramda	31,076 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark and its various aspects.

**Benchmark Overview**

The given benchmark compares the performance of four different approaches:

1. **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript library that provides utility functions, including `reduce`.
2. **Lodash FP (Functional Programming)**: Lodash's functional programming variant.
3. **Vanilla**: The native JavaScript implementation without any libraries or frameworks.
4. **Ramda**: Another popular JavaScript library that provides a functional programming style.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each approach on the same input data:

* `_.reduce(array, reducer, 0)`: Lodash's `reduce` function with an initial value of 0.
* `fp.reduce(reducer, 0)(array)`: Lodash FP's `reduce` function with an initial value of 0.
* `array.reduce(reducer, 0)`: Vanilla JavaScript's `reduce` function without any libraries or frameworks.
* `R.reduce(reducer, 0, array)`: Ramda's `reduce` function with an initial value of 0.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Lodash FP**: Pros:
	* Designed for functional programming, making it easier to reason about code.
	* Often more concise and expressive than traditional JavaScript loops.
Cons:
	* May incur a performance penalty compared to native JavaScript implementations.
2. **Lodash**: Pros:
	* Well-maintained and widely used library with extensive documentation.
	* Provides a wide range of utility functions, including `reduce`.
Cons:
	* May introduce unnecessary overhead due to the library's complexity.
3. **Vanilla**: Pros:
	* No external libraries or frameworks to consider, resulting in fewer potential sources of error.
	* Can be more optimized for performance since it's implemented in native JavaScript.
Cons:
	* Requires manual looping and indexing, which can lead to errors if not done correctly.
4. **Ramda**: Pros:
	* Provides a functional programming style similar to Lodash FP, making it easy to reason about code.
	* Often used in conjunction with other libraries or frameworks, so its performance may be better optimized.

**Special JS Features**

In this benchmark, the following JavaScript features are not explicitly mentioned:

* **Arrow functions**: Used in the `reducer` function for both Lodash FP and Vanilla implementations.
* **Template literals**: Not present in any of the provided implementations.
* **Async/await**: Not used in any of the provided implementations.

**Library Descriptions**

Here's a brief description of each library:

1. **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library providing various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object creation, and more.
2. **Ramda**: Another well-known functional programming library for JavaScript, offering a wide range of higher-order functions for data transformation and manipulation.
3. **Lodash FP (Functional Programming)**: Lodash's variant designed specifically for functional programming, providing a more concise and expressive way to write code.

**Other Alternatives**

For those looking for alternatives or complementary libraries, consider:

1. **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library similar to Lodash.
2. **Mocha**: A popular testing framework that can be used in conjunction with any of the above libraries.
3. **ES6+ features**: For those familiar with modern JavaScript features, using native functions like `Array.prototype.reduce()` or implementing functional programming styles like arrow functions and higher-order functions.

Keep in mind that each library has its own strengths, weaknesses, and use cases.

lodash fp vs lodash vs vanilla vs ramda (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Lodash vs Lodash FP vs Vanilla vs Ramda`

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Lodash

Lodash FP

Vanilla

Ramda

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

lodash fp vs lodash vs vanilla vs ramda (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Lodash FP vs Vanilla vs Ramda

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Lodash

Lodash FP

Vanilla

Ramda

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Lodash vs Lodash FP vs Vanilla vs Ramda`