Benchmark: Ramda vs. Lodash vs Natice (filter, find)

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var fp = _.noConflict();

var data = _.range(10000).map(function(i) {
  return {counter: i}
});

function isOdd(num) {
  return num % 2 === 1;
}

Tests:

Lodash filter
var result = _.filter(data, isOdd);
Ramda filter
var result = R.filter(isOdd, data);
Native filter
var result = data.filter(({counter}) => isOdd(counter));
Lodash find
var result = _.find(data, {counter: 859});
Ramda find
var result = R.find(R.propEq('counter', 859), data);
Native find
var result = data.find(({counter}) => counter === 859);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash filter
Ramda filter
Native filter
Lodash find
Ramda find
Native find

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/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash filter	479.6 Ops/sec
Ramda filter	504.2 Ops/sec
Native filter	23965.3 Ops/sec
Lodash find	304227.8 Ops/sec
Ramda find	10215.0 Ops/sec
Native find	1608505.6 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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three different libraries: Lodash, Ramda, and the native JavaScript implementation (without any external library). The focus is on two specific operations:

1. Filtering data using a predicate function (`isOdd`).
2. Finding an element in an array based on a property value (`counter`).

**Library Overview**

1. **Lodash**: A popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like filtering, mapping, and reducing data.
2. **Ramda**: A functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a set of higher-order functions for data processing.
3. **Native Implementation**: This refers to the native JavaScript `filter()` and `find()` methods, which are built-in functions in the language.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the performance of each library on the same tasks:

1. Filtering data using a predicate function (`isOdd`):
	* Lodash: Uses its `filter()` function.
	* Ramda: Uses its `filter()` function.
	* Native Implementation: Uses the native JavaScript `filter()` method.
2. Finding an element in an array based on a property value (`counter`):
	* Lodash: Uses its `find()` function.
	* Ramda: Uses its `find()` function.
	* Native Implementation: Uses the native JavaScript `find()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons for each library:

1. **Lodash**:
	* Pros: Wide range of utility functions, easy to use, and well-maintained.
	* Cons: Adds extra overhead due to its external dependencies.
2. **Ramda**:
	* Pros: Provides a concise and expressive way to write functional code, with a focus on immutability.
	* Cons: May require more learning and practice to master its syntax.
3. **Native Implementation**:
	* Pros: No additional overhead or dependencies, as it's built into the language.
	* Cons: Requires manual implementation of filtering and finding functions, which can be error-prone.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these options, consider the following factors:

1. **Code readability**: If you need to write concise and expressive code, Ramda might be a good choice. For more traditional, imperative-style code, Lodash or the native implementation might be better.
2. **Performance**: The native implementation is likely to be the fastest, as it doesn't introduce any external dependencies or overhead. However, this may require manual implementation of filtering and finding functions.
3. **Learning curve**: If you're new to functional programming or haven't used these libraries before, Lodash might be a better starting point due to its wide range of utility functions and familiar syntax.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries or approaches, consider the following:

1. **Other functional programming libraries**: Such as **Underscore.js**, which provides similar functionality to Ramda.
2. **Other filtering and finding libraries**: Like **Mochaslice**, which provides a simpler and more concise API for filtering data.
3. **Pure function libraries**: Such as **Immutable.js**, which focuses on immutability and functional programming principles.

Keep in mind that the choice of library ultimately depends on your project's specific needs, your personal preferences, and your team's expertise.

Related benchmarks:

Ramda vs. Lodash vs Natice (filter, find) (version: 0)

Compares performance on the same tasks using Lodash vs Ramda vs Native.

Comparing performance of: Lodash filter vs Ramda filter vs Native filter vs Lodash find vs Ramda find vs Native find

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash filter

Ramda filter

Native filter

Lodash find

Ramda find

Native find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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