Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Map Comparison
(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
_.map([1, 2, 3], n => n * 3)
plain js
[1, 2, 3].map(n => n * 3)
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):
Measuring JavaScript performance is a crucial aspect of ensuring efficient and scalable code. Let's dive into the benchmark you provided. **What is being tested?** The primary test case involves comparing the execution speed of two approaches: 1. **Lodash** (`_.map([1, 2, 3], n => n * 3)`): This uses a popular JavaScript utility library called Lodash. 2. **Plain JavaScript** (`[1, 2, 3].map(n => n * 3)`): This is a basic implementation without relying on any external libraries. **Options being compared** The two options being compared are: * Using the Lodash library for functional programming * Writing plain JavaScript code without relying on any external libraries **Pros and Cons of each approach:** 1. **Lodash**: * Pros: + Simplifies complex operations using utility functions (e.g., `_.map`, `_.filter`, etc.) + Reduces boilerplate code, making it more concise + Often provides better performance due to optimized implementations * Cons: + Adds external dependency, which may slow down execution if not cached + Can introduce additional overhead for parsing and compiling the Lodash functions 2. **Plain JavaScript**: * Pros: + Eliminates the need for an external library, reducing dependencies and potential overhead + May be faster in certain scenarios due to reduced overhead from parsing and compiling Lodash functions * Cons: + Requires more boilerplate code to achieve similar functionality + May lead to slower performance if not optimized properly **Library usage:** The `lodash.min.js` file is being used as an external library for the test. This library provides a wide range of utility functions, including `map`, which is used in one of the benchmark definitions. **Special JavaScript features or syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided benchmarks that would require additional explanation. **Other alternatives:** If you're looking for alternative libraries to Lodash, some popular options include: * **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library with similar functionality. * **Moment.js**: A library for working with dates and times. * **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a different set of utilities. Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own trade-offs and performance characteristics, which should be evaluated based on your specific use case. In summary, the benchmark you provided tests the execution speed of two approaches: using Lodash for functional programming and writing plain JavaScript code. Both options have pros and cons, and the choice ultimately depends on your project's requirements and constraints.
Related benchmarks:
Native map vs Lodash map
Array.prototype.map vs Lodash.map on large data
Test Lodash KarthikMM
native Map.size vs lodash _.isEmpty
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?