Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
ramda includes vs native
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
R.includes vs array.includes
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,97]
Tests:
R.includes
R.includes(47,primes)
array.includes
primes.includes(79)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
R.includes
array.includes
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 benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared options, pros/cons of each approach, and other considerations. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches: 1. Using Ramda's `R.includes` function 2. Using JavaScript's built-in `includes` method (available in modern browsers) **Options Compared** The two options being compared are: * **Ramda's R.includes**: A functional programming approach that uses a predicate function to check if an element is present in an array. * **JavaScript's Array.prototype.includes**: A native implementation of the includes method, which checks for presence in an array using a optimized algorithm. **Pros and Cons** ### Ramda's R.includes Pros: * **Functional programming style**: Uses a pure functional approach, making it easier to reason about and compose code. * **Predictable behavior**: The predicate function is explicitly defined, making the results predictable. * **Support for functional programming features**: Supports features like currying, memoization, and caching. Cons: * **Performance overhead**: May incur a performance penalty due to the functional programming approach. * **Additional dependencies**: Requires including Ramda's library, which may add extra weight to your project. ### JavaScript's Array.prototype.includes Pros: * **Native performance**: Optimized for performance by the browser engine. * **No additional dependencies**: No need to include any libraries or frameworks. * **Widespread support**: Available in most modern browsers and Node.js environments. Cons: * **Behavioral differences**: May exhibit different behavior on older browsers or edge cases. * **Less predictable**: The implementation details are not explicitly defined, making it harder to reason about the results. **Library Used: Ramda** Ramda is a popular functional programming library for JavaScript. Its primary purpose is to provide a set of reusable functions that can be composed together to solve complex problems. In this benchmark, Ramda's `R.includes` function is used to compare its performance with the native implementation. **Special JS Features/ Syntax: None** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two well-known approaches for checking presence in an array. **Other Alternatives** For checking presence in an array, you may also consider: * Using a library like Lodash's `some` function, which can be optimized for performance. * Implementing a custom solution using bitwise operations or regular expressions, although these approaches may incur significant performance penalties. * Utilizing WebAssembly or other low-level optimization techniques to further improve performance. Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific use case and requirements. This benchmark aims to provide a simple comparison of two widely used methods for checking presence in an array.
Related benchmarks:
array includes ramda lodash
includes - ramda vs native
Ramda vs vanilla JS
Ramda range vs Array.from
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?