Benchmark: Test Array Speed

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.arr = [];
for(i=0; i<1000; i++){ arr.push(i)}

Tests:

Lodash
_.isEmpty(window.arr);
JS
window.arr.length === 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
JS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/114.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Opera 114 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	29549488.0 Ops/sec
JS	181985904.0 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 what's tested in the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the execution speed of two different approaches: using built-in JavaScript (JS) and using the Lodash library.

**Options compared:**

1. **Built-in JavaScript**: This approach uses native JavaScript functions to check if an array is empty.
2. **Lodash**: This approach uses the Lodash library's `_.isEmpty` function to check if an array is empty.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

**Built-in JavaScript:**
Pros:

* Typically faster, as it doesn't require a separate library to be loaded.
* May be more suitable for small-scale applications or prototyping.

Cons:

* Can be less readable and maintainable, especially for complex logic.
* May not provide any additional benefits in terms of performance for very large arrays.

**Lodash:**
Pros:

* More concise and readable code, as it uses a well-established library with a clear purpose.
* Provides additional functionality beyond just checking emptiness (e.g., `_.isEmpty` can be used to check if an object is empty).

Cons:

* Requires loading the Lodash library, which may introduce latency or overhead.
* May not be suitable for small-scale applications or prototyping, where native JavaScript might be preferred.

**Library:**

In this case, the Lodash library is being used. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a collection of functions for common tasks such as array manipulation, string processing, and object transformation. The `_.isEmpty` function checks if an object (including arrays) has any properties or values.

**JavaScript feature/syntax:**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the benchmark uses a relatively modern version of JavaScript (ES6+), which may affect the behavior of certain functions and features.

**Other alternatives:**

If you wanted to compare other approaches, here are some potential options:

* Using a different library (e.g., Moment.js for date manipulation) or framework-specific libraries (e.g., Angular or React).
* Implementing custom solutions using native JavaScript.
* Using WebAssembly (WASM) or other low-level performance optimization techniques.

However, these alternatives would likely require significant modifications to the benchmark code and might not provide a straightforward comparison with the built-in JavaScript and Lodash approaches.

Related benchmarks:

Test Array Speed (version: 0)

Test Array Speed

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs JS

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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