Benchmark: lodash vs ramda new

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.26.1/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
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
ramda
myCopy = R.clone(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
ramda

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 benchmark and its components.

**What is tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents two microbenchmarks:

1.  The first benchmark uses Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library. It measures the time taken to create a deep copy of an object `MyObject` using the `_.cloneDeep()` method.
2.  The second benchmark uses Ramda, another popular functional programming library for JavaScript. It measures the time taken to create a deep copy of the same object `MyObject` using the `R.clone()` function.

**Options compared**

The two benchmarks compare the performance of Lodash's `_.cloneDeep()` and Ramda's `R.clone()` functions in creating a deep copy of an object. The options being compared are:

*   **Lodash**: `_.cloneDeep()`
    *   Pros:
        *   Wide range of features, including utility functions for strings, numbers, arrays, objects, etc.
        *   Large community support and documentation
    *   Cons:
        *   Larger in size due to its comprehensive feature set
*   **Ramda**: `R.clone()`
    *   Pros:
        *   Smaller footprint compared to Lodash
        *   Focus on functional programming principles, making it a good choice for developers familiar with FP concepts
    *   Cons:
        *   Smaller community support compared to Lodash

**Other considerations**

When choosing between these two options, consider the specific requirements of your project and your team's familiarity with functional programming. If you need a wide range of utility functions, Lodash might be a better fit. However, if you're looking for a lightweight library that focuses on immutable data structures, Ramda could be the way to go.

**Library descriptions**

*   **Lodash**: A popular JavaScript utility library providing functional programming helpers and shortcuts. It aims to help developers work more efficiently by reducing code duplication.
*   **Ramda**: A smaller, more focused functional programming library for JavaScript. It provides a set of higher-order functions to manipulate and transform data in an immutable way.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The provided JSON uses a special JavaScript feature called "template literals" (`\r\n` before the string literals). This syntax was introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and allows you to embed expressions inside string literals, making it easier to create multi-line strings. The `var myCopy = null;` line is an example of using template literals.

**Other alternatives**

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

*   **Immutability**: Focus on working with immutable data structures and functions that preserve state through function composition.
*   **Immutable.js**: A JavaScript library that provides a simple way to work with immutable data structures.
*   **Moo-Tools**: Another popular utility library for JavaScript, offering functional programming helpers similar to Lodash.

When choosing an alternative, consider your project's requirements, the size and performance constraints of your application, and your team's familiarity with different libraries or approaches.

Related benchmarks:

lodash vs ramda new (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs ramda

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

ramda

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):