Benchmark: Underscore 1.6 vss Underscore 1.9

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.6.0/underscore-min.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  window.u1 = _;
  _ = null;
</script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.9.1/underscore-min.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  window.u2 = _;
  _ = null;
</script>

Script Preparation code:

  var data = u1.range(10000).map(function(i) {
    return {
      counter: i
    }
  });
  
  function isOdd(num) {
    return num % 2 === 1;
  }
  
  function square(num) {
    return num * num;
  }
  
  function lessThanThreeDigits(num) {
    return num.toString().length < 3;
  }

Tests:

Underscore 1.6
var result = u1.chain(data) .map(item => item.counter) .filter(isOdd) .map(square) .filter(lessThanThreeDigits) .value();
Underscore 1.9
var result = u2.chain(data) .map(item => item.counter) .filter(isOdd) .map(square) .filter(lessThanThreeDigits) .value();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Underscore 1.6
Underscore 1.9

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.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark in detail.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two versions of the Underscore.js library: version 1.6 and version 1.9. The benchmark definition is provided as a JSON object, which includes:

* A script preparation code that sets up two variables `u1` and `u2`, each referencing a different version of Underscore.js. The scripts also define three functions: `isOdd`, `square`, and `lessThanThreeDigits`.
* An HTML preparation code that loads the two versions of Underscore.js.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

1. **Underscore.js 1.6**: This version is loaded as `u1` in the script preparation code.
2. **Underscore.js 1.9**: This version is loaded as `u2` in the script preparation code.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Underscore.js 1.6**:
	+ Pros: This approach allows for direct comparison between two versions of Underscore.js, making it easy to see the performance differences.
	+ Cons: This approach may not be representative of real-world usage, as it only tests a specific set of functions and data structures.
* **Underscore.js 1.9**:
	+ Pros: This approach allows for testing of newer versions of Underscore.js, which may include optimizations or changes that improve performance.
	+ Cons: Similar to the 1.6 approach, this may not be representative of real-world usage.

**Library and Its Purpose**

Underscore.js is a popular JavaScript library that provides a set of functional programming helpers, such as `chain`, `map`, `filter`, and others. In this benchmark, Underscore.js is used to chain together these helper functions to perform a series of operations on an array of data.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The code is simple and straightforward, using only basic JavaScript concepts.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in comparing performance between different versions of Underscore.js or other libraries, here are some alternatives:

* Use a testing framework like Jest or Mocha to write unit tests for your application.
* Use a benchmarking library like BenchmarkJS or WebPageTest to run benchmarks on your application.
* Compare the performance of different JavaScript implementations, such as V8 (Chrome) vs. SpiderMonkey (Firefox).

In summary, this benchmark is comparing the performance of two versions of Underscore.js: 1.6 and 1.9. The benchmark uses a simple script preparation code to load the two versions and defines three functions to test their performance. While there are some pros and cons to each approach, the benchmark provides a useful comparison between the two versions.

Related benchmarks:

Underscore 1.6 vss Underscore 1.9 (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Underscore 1.6 vs Underscore 1.9

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Underscore 1.6

Underscore 1.9

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):