Benchmark: Ramda map vs Array.map vs Lodash map

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function double(n) {
	return n*2;
}
var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30];

Tests:

Ramda
R.map(double, data);
Array (native)
data.map(double);
Lodash
_.map(data, double)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
Array (native)
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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test case, specifically comparing the performance of three different libraries: Ramda's `map` function, Array (native) `map` function, and Lodash's `map` function.

**Tested Options**

The benchmark compares the following options:

1. **Ramda's map**: Using Ramda's `map` function to transform an array of numbers by doubling each element.
2. **Array (native) map**: Using the native `map` function provided by JavaScript, which is built into the language and does not require any external libraries.
3. **Lodash's map**: Using Lodash's `map` function to transform an array of numbers by doubling each element.

**Pros and Cons**

*   **Ramda's map**: Pros: Ramda provides a functional programming API that can be more concise and expressive than traditional imperative approaches. Cons: It requires importing the library and learning its API, which may not be familiar to all developers.
*   **Array (native) map**: Pros: It is built into JavaScript and does not require any external libraries, making it easy to use for most developers. Cons: Its performance can be slower than native functions implemented in a specific language or platform.
*   **Lodash's map**: Pros: Lodash provides a comprehensive set of functional programming utilities, including `map`, that can simplify code and improve readability. Cons: It requires importing the library, which may add overhead to the test.

**Library Descriptions**

1.  **Ramda**: Ramda is a functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a set of APIs for manipulating data using pure functions. Its `map` function applies a given transformation function to each element in an array.
2.  **Lodash**: Lodash is a comprehensive utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions, including `map`, for working with arrays and objects.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided test case.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to create your own benchmarking test case for comparing different map functions or other functional programming libraries, you could consider using alternatives like:

*   **PureScript**: A functional programming language that compiles to JavaScript.
*   **MongolJS**: A functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a simpler API than Ramda.

These alternatives offer different strengths and weaknesses compared to Ramda, Lodash, and the native `map` function. When choosing an alternative, consider factors such as your team's familiarity with functional programming concepts, performance requirements, and ease of use.

Related benchmarks:

Ramda map vs Array.map vs Lodash map (version: 0)

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

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs Array (native) vs Lodash

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

Array (native)

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):