Benchmark: lodash map vs. vanilla map

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

lodash map
const arr = ['1', 'two', 'thr33']; _.map(arr, i => `${i.length} letters`);
vanilla map
const arr = ['1', 'two', 'thr33']; arr.map(i => `${i.length} letters`);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash map
vanilla map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash map	3728109.0 Ops/sec
vanilla map	13045360.0 Ops/sec

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's being tested, compared, and considered in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to achieving a specific result:

1. **Lodash `map`**: Using the `_` object from the Lodash library, which provides utility functions for functional programming.
2. **Vanilla `map`**: The built-in `map()` method of JavaScript arrays.

**Options Compared**

In this case, we're comparing two options with slightly different implementations:

* Lodash's `map` function, which uses a closure to iterate over the array and apply the provided callback function.
* Vanilla's `map()` method, which also iterates over the array using closures but is more lightweight and doesn't include additional utility functions.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

Lodash `map`:
Pros:

* More flexible and powerful, with access to Lodash's vast library of utility functions.
* May be faster in cases where the callback function requires multiple iterations or complex logic.

Cons:

* Introduces an additional dependency (the Lodash library), which may not be suitable for all environments.
* Adds overhead due to the presence of a separate `_` object and its dependencies.

Vanilla `map`:
Pros:

* Lightweight and minimalist, with only the bare essentials required to perform the mapping operation.
* No additional dependencies or overhead, making it more suitable for resource-constrained environments.

Cons:

* May be slower in cases where complex logic is required within the callback function.
* Less flexible than Lodash's `map` due to its limited utility functions.

**Library and Syntax**

In this benchmark, we're using the following library:

* Lodash (version 4.17.5): A popular JavaScript library providing functional programming utilities, including the `map()` method.

The syntax used is standard JavaScript, with no special features or syntax being tested.

**Alternatives**

If you'd like to consider alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **Other libraries**: You could test other utility libraries like Moment.js (for string manipulation) or a custom implementation using `forEach()` and string concatenation.
2. **Native functions**: You might want to compare the performance of native functions like `String.prototype.repeat()` or `Array.prototype.reduce()`, which can be used for similar tasks.
3. **In-place modifications**: Consider testing whether modifying the original array in-place is faster than creating a new array with the mapped values.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would require additional setup and configuration to ensure accurate results.

I hope this explanation helps you understand what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark!

Related benchmarks:

lodash map vs. vanilla map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash map vs vanilla map

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash map

vanilla map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):