Benchmark: Ramda vs native - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.26.1/ramda.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'joey',  'age': 32 },
  { 'user': 'ross',    'age': 41 },
  { 'user': 'chandler', 'age': 39 }
]

Tests:

Native
users.find(function (o) { return o.age < 40; })
Rambda
R.find(function(o){return o.age < 40;},users)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Rambda

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 18_7 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/26.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 26 on iOS 18.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	155286144.0 Ops/sec
Rambda	23873316.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON and explain the options compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: native JavaScript (without any libraries) and Ramda.js. The focus is on finding a specific user with an age less than 40 using both methods.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Native**: This refers to the native JavaScript implementation without any additional libraries.
2. **Rambda**: This option uses Rambda.js, a functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a set of higher-order functions similar to Ramda.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and doesn't introduce additional dependencies
* Native performance is typically optimal

Cons:

* Requires manual implementation of the find function, which can be error-prone
* Performance might not be as good due to overhead of function calls

**Rambda:**

Pros:

* Provides a concise and readable way to implement the find function
* Might provide better performance due to optimized implementations in Rambda.js

Cons:

* Introduces an additional dependency (Rambda.js)
* May have slower execution times compared to native implementation

**Other Considerations**

The test also includes the browser, device platform, operating system, and number of executions per second. These metrics can provide valuable insights into how well each approach performs in different environments.

**Library: Ramda.js**

Ramda.js is a functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a set of higher-order functions. The `R.find()` function used in the benchmark definition is part of this library. It takes two arguments: a predicate function and an array to search through. If the predicate returns true for any element, it returns that element; otherwise, it returns undefined.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided JSON. The benchmark uses standard JavaScript syntax and does not include any experimental or proprietary features.

**Alternatives**

Some alternative approaches to compare might include:

1. Using a different functional programming library (e.g., Lodash, Lo-Dash)
2. Implementing the find function from scratch without using any libraries
3. Using a different browser or device platform for testing

Related benchmarks:

Ramda vs native (version: 0)

TBD

Comparing performance of: Native vs Rambda

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Rambda

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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