Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
agfhjfghjfghjfghj
(version: 0)
a
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs es7
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>
Script Preparation code:
var arr = [{id: 2, name: 'sa'},{id: 3, name: 'sa'},{id: 4, name: 'sa'},{id: 5, name: 'sa'},{id: 6, name: 'sa'}];
Tests:
lodash
_.filter(arr, a => a.id %2 === 0);
es7
arr.filter(a => a.id %2 === 0);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash
es7
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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net. **What is tested?** MeasureThat.net tests the performance of two different approaches to filter an array in JavaScript: 1. Using the Lodash library: `_.filter(arr, a => a.id % 2 === 0)` 2. Using native JavaScript syntax (ES7+): `arr.filter(a => a.id % 2 === 0)` **Options compared** Two options are being tested: * Option A: Using the Lodash library * Option B: Using native JavaScript syntax The pros and cons of each approach are as follows: **Lodash Library** Pros: * Familiarity: Lodash is a widely used library, making it easy for developers to understand and work with. * Robustness: Lodash provides a robust set of utilities that can help avoid common errors. Cons: * Overhead: Including an external library like Lodash adds overhead due to the need to download and parse the library. * Dependence on other libraries: If you want to use Lodash, you may need to include other libraries it depends on, which can increase complexity. **Native JavaScript Syntax (ES7+)** Pros: * Lightweight: Using native JavaScript syntax eliminates the need for an external library, making it a lightweight option. * Native performance: Since this approach uses native JavaScript, it should have better performance compared to an external library. Cons: * Complexity: Native JavaScript syntax can be more complex and harder to read, especially for developers unfamiliar with ES7+ features. **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string processing, and object transformation. The `_.filter()` function used in the benchmark definition is part of Lodash's filtering utilities. **Special JS feature or syntax: ES7+** The benchmark uses native JavaScript syntax (ES7+) to filter an array. This syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2017 (ES7) and provides a more concise way to perform common tasks, such as array filtering and mapping. In this case, the `arr.filter()` function is used to create a new array with elements that pass the condition `a.id % 2 === 0`. This syntax is supported by modern browsers, including Chrome 75, which is used in the benchmark. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for filtering arrays include: * Using a custom implementation without using any libraries or native JavaScript syntax. * Using other libraries like Underscore.js (which is similar to Lodash) or Ramda. * Using a different approach, such as using a binary search algorithm to find elements that meet the condition. These alternatives can be explored depending on specific requirements and performance needs.
Related benchmarks:
jjkjkgjkj
lodash vs es6 in find method
Javascript array test
Lodash IsEmpty Test
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?