Benchmark: Find (Native vs Ramda)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function is98(v){
  return v === 98;
}
var data = [...Array(100)].map((v, idx) => idx);

Tests:

Ramda
R.find(is98, data);
Array (native)
data.find(is98);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
Array (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.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test for comparing the performance of Ramda's `find` function with the native `find` method of arrays in JavaScript.

**What is being tested?**

Two options are compared:

1. **Ramda's `find` function**: This function searches for the first element in an array that satisfies a given predicate (a function that returns a boolean value). In this case, the predicate is `is98`, which checks if a value is equal to 98.
2. **Array's native `find` method**: This method also searches for the first element in an array that satisfies a given predicate.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

1. **Ramda's `find` function**:
	* Pros:
		+ More explicit and readable code, as it separates the search logic from the data structure.
		+ Can be more efficient for large datasets, as Ramda uses a specialized internal algorithm that minimizes unnecessary computations.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires an additional library (Ramda) to be included in the test script.
		+ May have slightly slower performance compared to native methods, due to the overhead of using an external function.
2. **Array's native `find` method**:
	* Pros:
		+ Native performance, as it is implemented in C++ and optimized for speed.
		+ No additional library required, reducing overhead.
	* Cons:
		+ Code can be less readable, especially when dealing with complex predicates or large datasets.
		+ May require more memory to store the search results.

**Library: Ramda**

Ramda is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a functional programming style for array and object manipulation. In this case, it's used to implement the `find` function, which allows developers to write concise and expressive code.

**Special JS feature/syntax: None mentioned**

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

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other options, here are a few:

* **Lodash**: Another popular utility library that provides a similar `find` function to Ramda.
* **Native `forEach` and `some` methods**: Instead of using `find`, you could use the native `forEach` method to iterate over the array and check each element against the predicate, or use the `some` method to stop iterating as soon as the first matching element is found.

Overall, this benchmark provides a useful comparison between Ramda's `find` function and the native `find` method of arrays in JavaScript, highlighting the trade-offs between explicit code, performance, and library usage.

Related benchmarks:

Find (Native vs Ramda) (version: 0)

measures the speed of ramda's find vs Array's native find

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs Array (native)

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

Array (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):