Benchmark: Comparing performance of native .length and Lodash _.isEmpty

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var str = '';

Tests:

Lodash
_.isEmpty(str)
Native
str.length

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:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	6551084.0 Ops/sec
Native	13704415.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its components to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: native JavaScript (using `str.length`) versus using the Lodash library (`_isEmpty(str)`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Native**: This option uses the built-in `length` property of the string object in JavaScript. It's a simple and straightforward way to get the length of a string.
2. **Lodash**: This option uses the `_.isEmpty` function from the Lodash library, which takes a value as an argument and returns a boolean indicating whether the value is empty or not.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Native**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster and more efficient, as it's a built-in JavaScript method.
	+ Cons: May not be compatible with older browsers or versions of JavaScript, as `length` property has different behavior in some cases.
* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros: More robust and flexible, especially for more complex data structures like arrays or objects. It also provides additional utility functions that can be useful in other contexts.
	+ Cons: Adds extra overhead due to the library itself, which may impact performance.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a comprehensive set of utility functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string formatting, and more. The `_.isEmpty` function is one of its many helpers, designed to simplify common pattern matching and data validation tasks.

In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.isEmpty` function is used to check if the input string `str` is empty or not. While it may seem like a simple task, using a library like Lodash can provide a convenient and efficient way to perform this operation, especially in more complex scenarios.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark that's worth noting. The focus is on the performance comparison between native JavaScript and a third-party library.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark for checking if an object is empty, some alternative approaches could include:

* Using `Object.keys(str).length === 0` (a more verbose but still efficient approach)
* Creating a custom function that checks the length of the string's prototype chain or uses a different data structure to represent the input value
* Using a library like Moment.js for date-related tasks, which also provides utility functions for data validation

However, for simple cases like checking if an empty string is present, using `str.length` and `_.isEmpty(str)` are likely to be among the fastest options.

Overall, this benchmark is designed to illustrate the performance differences between native JavaScript and a third-party library like Lodash.

Related benchmarks:

Comparing performance of native .length and Lodash _.isEmpty (version: 0)

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

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