Benchmark: Ramda vs. Lodash equality

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/ivolovikov/fastest-clone/master/index.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)'></script>

Script Preparation code:

// intial data
var source = {a:1,b:1,c:1,d:1,e:1,f:1,g:1,h:{a:-1,b:1,c:1,d:1,e:1,f:1,g:1}};
var source2 = {a:1,b:1,c:1,d:1,e:1,f:1,g:1,h:{a:-1,b:1,c:1,d:1,e:1,f:1,g:1}};

Tests:

Lodash
var result = _.isEqual(source);
Ramda without relying on currying or composition
var result = R.equals(source);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 14 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 14 runs

Ramda without relying on currying or composition

9.8M/s

Lodash

1.3M/s

Fastest: Ramda without relying on currying or composition (7.8x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Ramda without relying on currying or composition: 9,847,693 ops/sec
• Lodash: 1,264,528 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Ramda without relying on currying or composition

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/18.5 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 18 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Ramda without relying on currying or composition

85.0M/s

Lodash

2.5M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Ramda without relying on currying or composition	84,966,408 Ops/sec
Lodash	2,455,184 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark, "Ramda vs. Lodash equality", compares the performance of two popular JavaScript libraries: Ramda and Lodash, for performing equality checks on an object. The benchmark also includes a third option, Fastest Clone, which is not a well-known library but claims to provide fast and efficient clone operations.

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The preparation code sets up two objects, `source` and `source2`, with identical properties and values, except for the property `h` in `source` being an object with a negative value. The scripts include the necessary libraries: Ramda, Lodash, and Fastest Clone.

**Test Cases**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Lodash**: The benchmark definition uses Lodash's `isEqual` function to compare `source` and `source2`.
2. **Ramda without relying on currying or composition**: This test case uses Ramda's `equals` function, which is a simple comparison function that returns `true` if the two arguments are equal.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of Lodash's `isEqual` function with Ramda's `equals` function. Fastest Clone is not used in this specific benchmark, but its presence indicates an interest in exploring alternative libraries for clone operations.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Lodash (`isEqual`)**:
	* Pros: Widely adopted and well-maintained library with a large community.
	* Cons: May have overhead due to its comprehensive feature set and multiple dependencies (e.g., fp.js).
2. **Ramda (`equals`)**:
	* Pros: More lightweight and focused on functional programming concepts, making it suitable for tasks like equality checks.
	* Cons: Smaller community compared to Lodash, which may impact support and documentation.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing a library for equality checks or clone operations, consider the following factors:

1. **Performance**: Benchmark different libraries and implementations to determine which one outperforms others in your specific use case.
2. **Feature set**: If you need additional features like data transformations or functional programming tools, consider Lodash's broader feature set.
3. **Community support**: Look for libraries with active communities and documentation, ensuring easier integration and troubleshooting.

**Fastest Clone**

As mentioned earlier, Fastest Clone is not a well-known library. It may provide fast clone operations, but its popularity and maintainability are unclear. If you're interested in exploring alternative clone libraries, consider:

1. **Lodash's `cloneDeep`**: A more lightweight option than Lodash's full clone functionality.
2. **Ramda's `clone`**: Provides a simple cloning function without the need for currying or composition.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. However, if you're interested in exploring alternative approaches to equality checks or clone operations, consider:

1. **ES6 Object Equality Checks**: Use `===` and `!==` operators for simple object comparisons.
2. **JSON Serialization**: Compare objects by serializing them as JSON strings using `JSON.stringify()`.

By understanding the pros and cons of each library and considering additional factors, you can make informed decisions about choosing the right library for your specific use case.

Ramda vs. Lodash equality (version: 0)

Compares performance on the same task using Lodash vs Ramda vs Fastest Clone.

Comparing performance of: `Lodash vs Ramda without relying on currying or composition`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash

Ramda without relying on currying or composition

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 14 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 14 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Ramda vs. Lodash equality (version: 0)

Compares performance on the same task using Lodash vs Ramda vs Fastest Clone.

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Ramda without relying on currying or composition

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash

Ramda without relying on currying or composition

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 14 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 14 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Lodash vs Ramda without relying on currying or composition`