Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Includes Test
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodash vs plain js
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Tests:
lodash
_.includes([1, 2, 3], 1)
plain js
[1, 2, 3].includes(1)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash
plain 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):
Let's break down the provided benchmarking data and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The website `MeasureThat.net` provides a platform for users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark involves two test cases: one using the `lodash` library and another using plain JavaScript. **Test Cases** 1. **_.includes([1, 2, 3], 1)**: * This test case uses the `_` (underscore) function from the `lodash` library. * The purpose of this function is to check if an element exists in a given array. In this case, it's checking if `1` exists in the array `[1, 2, 3]`. * The `_.includes()` method returns `true` if the element is found in the array and `false` otherwise. 2. **[1, 2, 3].includes(1)**: * This test case uses a native JavaScript method to check if an element exists in an array. * In this case, it's checking if `1` exists in the array `[1, 2, 3]`. * The `.includes()` method returns `true` if the element is found in the array and `false` otherwise. **Comparison of Options** The two test cases compare the performance of using a library (`lodash`) versus native JavaScript. Here are some pros and cons of each approach: 1. **Using Lodash (`_.includes([1, 2, 3], 1)`)**: * Pros: + Provides additional functionality that's not part of native JavaScript. + Can be more concise code. * Cons: + Requires an external library to be included in the HTML file. + May introduce additional overhead due to the library's initialization and dependencies. 2. **Native JavaScript (`[1, 2, 3].includes(1)`)**: * Pros: + No external libraries are required. + Typically less overhead compared to using a library. * Cons: + May require more code to achieve the same functionality. **Other Considerations** When benchmarking JavaScript functions like these, it's essential to consider other factors that might impact performance: 1. **Variable dependencies**: Some libraries or built-in methods may have dependencies on variables that can affect performance. In this case, both test cases use an array and a value (`1`), so variable dependencies are not a concern. 2. **Browser-specific optimizations**: Different browsers may optimize JavaScript execution differently, which can lead to variations in benchmark results. **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a wide range of utility functions for tasks like data manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The `_.includes()` method is just one example of the many functions available in Lodash. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There are no special features or syntax used in these test cases beyond standard JavaScript.
Related benchmarks:
isFunction vs typeof function 6
isEmpty vs. vanilla
asdasdjkh askjdjkasdkjasd
topkek
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?