Benchmark: JS Reduce - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var fp = _.noConflict();
var array =  ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z'];
var reducer = (r, x) => r + x;

Tests:

Lodash FP
fp.reduce(reducer, '', array)
Lodash
_.reduce(array, reducer, '')
Vanila JS
array.reduce(reducer, '');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash FP
Lodash
Vanila JS

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.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what is being tested in each benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition represents three different approaches to implementing the `reduce` method in JavaScript:

1. **Lodash FP (Lodash's Functional Programming variant)**: This approach uses Lodash's functional programming (FP) library, which provides a set of functions that operate on pure data structures. In this case, the `_noConflict()` function is used to avoid polluting the global scope with Lodash functions.
2. **Lodash**: This approach uses the standard `_.reduce()` function from the Lodash library.
3. **Vanilla JS (Native JavaScript)**: This approach implements the `reduce()` method using only native JavaScript, without relying on any external libraries.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares three different options for implementing the `reduce` method:

* Using a third-party library (Lodash FP)
* Using a widely-used third-party library (Lodash)
* Implementing the method natively in JavaScript (Vanilla JS)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash FP**: Pros:
	* Provides a functional programming approach that can lead to more concise and expressive code.
	* Uses a well-established library with a large user base.
Cons:
	* Requires including an external library, which may increase the benchmark's size.
2. **Lodash**: Pros:
	* Easy to use and provides a lot of functionality out-of-the-box.
	* Well-maintained and widely used library.
Cons:
	* May not be suitable for projects where size or overhead is a concern.
3. **Vanilla JS**: Pros:
	* No external dependencies, which can reduce the benchmark's size.
	* Native JavaScript implementation ensures optimal performance and security.
Cons:
	* Can be more verbose and less concise than using a library.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for working with data structures. The `_noConflict()` function is used to avoid polluting the global scope with Lodash functions, which can help prevent naming conflicts.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in this explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need alternative approaches for implementing the `reduce` method, you may consider:

* Using other functional programming libraries like Ramda or Underscore.js.
* Implementing a custom implementation using only native JavaScript.
* Using a polyfill to provide support for older browsers that do not natively support the `reduce()` method.

Note that these alternatives may have their own pros and cons, which can affect the performance and size of your benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

JS Reduce (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash FP vs Lodash vs Vanila JS

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash FP

Lodash

Vanila JS

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):