Benchmark: wasbet - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

    function wasBet(obj) {
        !!Object.keys(obj).length;
    }
    
    
    var o1 = {};
    var o2 = {foo: 1};
    var o3 = new class Foo {foo = 12};

Tests:

lodash
_.isEmpty(o1); _.isEmpty(o2); _.isEmpty(o3);
wasBet
wasBet(o1); wasBet(o2); wasBet(o3);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
wasBet

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **wasBet**: This test case measures the execution time of a JavaScript function `wasBet` that takes an object as input. The function simply checks if the object has keys using the `!!Object.keys(obj).length` expression.
2. **lodash**: This test case measures the execution time of Lodash's `isEmpty` function, which takes an object as input and returns `true` if the object is empty.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two approaches:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript (wasBet)**: The `wasBet` test case uses only vanilla JavaScript to measure the execution time.
2. **Lodash (lodash)**: The `lodash` test case uses Lodash's `isEmpty` function, which is a utility function that provides additional functionality.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Vanilla JavaScript (wasBet)**
	* Pros:
		+ Lighter weight, with fewer dependencies.
		+ Can be more efficient in terms of execution time.
	* Cons:
		+ May not leverage optimized JavaScript engines or hardware features.
2. **Lodash (lodash)**
	* Pros:
		+ Leverages the optimization efforts of Lodash's maintainers and the broader community.
		+ May provide better performance due to Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation and caching.
	* Cons:
		+ Introduces an additional dependency, which may increase overhead.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a collection of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object transformation, and more. The `isEmpty` function is one of these utilities, which checks if an object has any properties (i.e., keys) using the `_` symbol (a shorthand for "underscore").

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to Lodash, here are a few options:

1. **Underscore.js**: Another popular JavaScript utility library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.
2. **ES6 Object Shorthand**: If you don't need the full range of Lodash's utilities, you can use ES6 object shorthand syntax to check if an object is empty (e.g., `if (!o1) return;`).
3. **Built-in JavaScript Functions**: Some browsers provide built-in functions for working with objects, such as `Object.keys()` and `JSON.stringify()`. However, these may not be as efficient or convenient to use as Lodash's `isEmpty` function.

Keep in mind that the choice of library or approach ultimately depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Related benchmarks:

wasbet (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs wasBet

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

wasBet

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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