Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Map JS vs Lodash
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
JS map vs Lodash map
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Tests:
JS map
const a = [1, 2, 3] const b = a.map(n => n +1)
Lodash map
const a = [1,2,3] const b = _.map(a, n => n +1)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
JS map
Lodash map
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):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is comparing two approaches to achieve the same result: using native JavaScript (`JS map`) versus using the popular utility library Lodash (`Lodash map`). **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **Native JavaScript (JS map)**: This approach uses the `map()` function provided by the ECMAScript standard, which is a built-in method of arrays in JavaScript. 2. **Lodash (Lodash map)**: This approach uses the `_map()` function from Lodash, a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for working with data structures. **Pros and Cons** Here are some pros and cons of each approach: **Native JavaScript (JS map)** Pros: * Lightweight and compact, as it only requires the `map()` function * No dependencies or additional libraries to load * Fast execution, as it's a native function Cons: * May not be as readable or maintainable for complex operations * Limited functionality compared to Lodash **Lodash (Lodash map)** Pros: * More expressive and readable code, with the addition of utility functions like `map()` * Provides additional functionality beyond what's available in the native JavaScript `map()` function * Can be more convenient for developers familiar with Lodash Cons: * Adds an extra dependency to load, which can impact page load times or bundle size * May have a slight performance penalty due to the added library overhead **Library and Purpose** Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for working with data structures. Its purpose is to provide a convenient and expressive way to perform common tasks, such as mapping, filtering, and reducing arrays. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The `map()` function is a standard part of the ECMAScript standard. **Other Alternatives** If you were to implement this benchmark using only native JavaScript, you might consider alternatives like: * Using `forEach()` instead of `map()` * Implementing your own mapping algorithm from scratch * Using other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality However, for most use cases, the native JavaScript `map()` function is a good choice due to its simplicity and performance. For Lodash, if you wanted to implement this benchmark using only native JavaScript, you might consider implementing your own utility functions like `map()`, `filter()`, or `reduce()`. Alternatively, you could choose a different library that provides similar functionality.
Related benchmarks:
Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map on large data
lodash _.map vs native map true version
Lodash.js isEmpty vs Native on Map
native Map.size vs lodash _.isEmpty
Array Map Vs Lodash Map (1)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?