Benchmark: native find vs _.find

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.core.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'barney',  'age': 36, 'active': true },
  { 'user': 'fred',    'age': 40, 'active': false },
  { 'user': 'pebbles', 'age': 1,  'active': true }
]

Tests:

array find
// Native users.find(function (o) { return o.age < 40; })
_.find
_.find(users, function (o) { return o.age < 40; })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array find
_.find

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 dive into the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches: using the native `find()` method in JavaScript (without any additional libraries) versus using the popular utility library Lodash (`_.find`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Native Find**: This refers to the built-in `find()` method in JavaScript, which searches for an element in an array that satisfies a provided function.
2. **Lodash _.Find**: This uses the `_find` function from Lodash, which is a utility library that provides a wide range of helper functions for common tasks.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native Find:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and doesn't require any additional libraries or dependencies.
* Can be faster since it's a built-in method in JavaScript.
* Easy to understand and use for most developers.

Cons:

* May not be as efficient as Lodash's implementation, which is optimized for performance.
* May have limitations due to browser support (e.g., older browsers might not support `find()`).

**Lodash _.Find:**

Pros:

* Highly optimized for performance, making it a good choice for large datasets or complex searches.
* Provides additional features and options, such as filtering and mapping, which can be useful in certain scenarios.

Cons:

* Requires the Lodash library to be included, adding extra dependencies and potential overhead.
* May have a steeper learning curve due to its unique syntax and API.

**Library - Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of helper functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The `_find` function in particular is designed to be fast and efficient while also providing additional features like filtering and mapping.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax - None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternative Approaches**

Other approaches could include:

* Using other utility libraries, such as Underscore.js or Ramda.
* Implementing a custom search function using vanilla JavaScript.
* Using a different data structure, like an object instead of an array, for the comparison.

Overall, this benchmark provides a good opportunity to compare the performance and trade-offs between native `find()` in JavaScript and Lodash's `_find` function.

Related benchmarks:

native find vs _.find (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: array find vs _.find

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array find

_.find

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):