Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs Ramda Clone

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Ramda clone
myCopy = R.clone(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Ramda clone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:140.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/140.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 140 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash cloneDeep	2012747.1 Ops/sec
Ramda clone	3905054.2 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 data and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two JavaScript libraries: Lodash and Ramda, specifically their `cloneDeep` functions. The benchmark aims to create a deep copy of an object (`MyObject`) using each library and measure the execution time.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**: This function is part of the Lodash library, which provides a utility function for creating deep copies of objects.
2. **Ramda Clone**: This function is part of the Ramda library, which also provides functional programming utilities, including functions for working with data structures like arrays and objects.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash cloneDeep**:
	+ Pros: Widely used and well-maintained library with a large community.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to its utility function approach, which can lead to more overhead.
* **Ramda Clone**:
	+ Pros: More functional programming-centric approach, which can lead to faster execution times for certain use cases.
	+ Cons: Smaller community compared to Lodash.

**Library Overview**

1. **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, object creation, and more.
2. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a set of higher-order functions for working with data structures like arrays and objects.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of two libraries' `cloneDeep` functions.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative deep cloning libraries or approaches, consider:

1. **Immutable.js**: A library that provides a set of immutable data structures and functions for creating copies.
2. **Deep Clone**: A simple library that provides only the `cloneDeep` function.
3. **For...of loops** or **Array.prototype.map()**: You can use these built-in JavaScript features to create deep clones manually, but this approach may not be as efficient or readable.

Keep in mind that benchmarking performance is highly dependent on the specific use case and implementation details. This comparison aims to provide a general understanding of the trade-offs between Lodash's cloneDeep and Ramda's Clone functions.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs Ramda Clone (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Ramda clone

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Ramda clone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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