Benchmark: lodash vanilla test

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.16.0/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var values = [{a: 30310}, {b: 100303}, {c: 3040494}]

Tests:

vanilla
let count = 0; let i = 0 let len = values.length for (; i < len; i++) { if (values[i].a != null) { count++; } }
lodash
var count = 0; _.forEach(values, function(v,i) { if (v.a != null) { count++; } })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
vanilla
lodash

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.

I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros and cons of each approach, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark with two test cases: "vanilla" and "lodash". The benchmark compares the execution time of a simple loop in vanilla JavaScript vs. using the Lodash library.

**Test Case 1: Vanilla JavaScript**

The first test case uses only vanilla JavaScript, as shown in the `Benchmark Definition` code:
```javascript
let count = 0;
let i = 0;
let len = values.length;
for (; i < len; i++) {
  if (values[i].a != null) {
    count++;
  }
}
```
This test case measures the execution time of a simple loop that iterates through an array and increments a counter when a specific property (`a`) is not null.

**Pros and Cons of Vanilla JavaScript Approach**

Pros:

* Lightest weight, no additional dependencies
* Easy to understand and maintain

Cons:

* May be slower due to interpreter overhead
* Limited functionality compared to Lodash

**Test Case 2: Lodash Library**

The second test case uses the Lodash library, as shown in the `Benchmark Definition` code:
```javascript
var count = 0;
_.forEach(values, function(v,i) {
  if (v.a != null) {
    count++;
  }
});
```
This test case measures the execution time of the same loop as before, but using the Lodash library to iterate through the array and increment the counter.

**Pros and Cons of Lodash Library Approach**

Pros:

* Faster execution time due to optimized iteration
* More functionality compared to vanilla JavaScript

Cons:

* Adds an additional dependency (Lodash library)
* May have a larger codebase, making it harder to understand and maintain

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark assumes that the Lodash library is loaded before running the test case. In a real-world scenario, this might not always be the case.
* The benchmark uses a simple array of objects with a specific property (`a`) to test the loop. This might not be representative of all use cases.
* The benchmark only measures the execution time of the loop and does not account for other factors like memory allocation or garbage collection.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for benchmarking JavaScript loops could include:

* Using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler like V8 to optimize the code
* Using a parallelization framework like Web Workers to execute multiple loops concurrently
* Using a testing framework that provides more comprehensive metrics, such as memory usage or CPU utilization

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own pros and cons, and the choice of approach depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

lodash vanilla test (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanilla vs lodash

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

vanilla

lodash

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):