Benchmark: test2020 - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script>https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.core.min.js</script>

Script Preparation code:

var ages = [3, 10, 18, 20];

function checkAdult(age) {
  return age >= 18;
}

Tests:

loda find
_.find(ages, checkAdult);
js find
ages.find(checkAdult);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
loda find
js find

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.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its results.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks that test the performance of two different implementations of the `find` method: Lodash's `_find` function and the built-in `find` method of the Array prototype in JavaScript. The benchmarks are designed to measure which implementation is faster for finding a specific element within an array.

**Comparison options**

The comparison between Lodash's `_find` and the built-in `find` method involves two approaches:

1. **Lodash's `_find` function**: This is a utility function provided by the popular JavaScript library Lodash. It takes three arguments: the array to search, the predicate function (in this case, `checkAdult`), and an optional second argument for starting the search from a specific index.
2. **Built-in Array.prototype.find method**: This is the native implementation of the `find` method in modern JavaScript engines. It also takes two arguments: the array to search and the predicate function.

**Pros and cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

Lodash's `_find` function:

* Pros:
	+ Often implemented in native code for optimal performance
	+ Can be more flexible with its options (e.g., starting from a specific index)
* Cons:
	+ Adds an external dependency on Lodash, which may not be desirable for every project
	+ May have additional overhead due to the library's initialization and dependencies

Built-in Array.prototype.find method:

* Pros:
	+ No external dependency required
	+ Often implemented in native code for optimal performance
* Cons:
	+ May not provide as much flexibility with its options (e.g., starting from a specific index)
	+ Can be slower than Lodash's implementation due to the overhead of JavaScript engine execution

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, the `lodash` library is used. The `_find` function is imported via a script tag in the HTML preparation code.

The purpose of using Lodash in this benchmark is to test the performance difference between its optimized implementation and the built-in Array.prototype.find method. By using an external library, the benchmark can isolate the impact of the different implementations on the JavaScript engine's native code.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The tests focus solely on comparing the performance of two existing implementation approaches.

**Alternative alternatives**

If you were to write a similar benchmark, you could explore other alternatives for implementing the `find` method, such as:

* Using a library like Ramda.js
* Implementing your own native code using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler or Ahead-Of-Time (AOT) compilation
* Using a different data structure, such as a linked list or tree, to test search performance

Keep in mind that the best approach will depend on the specific requirements and constraints of your project.

Related benchmarks:

test2020 (version: 0)

js find vs loda find

Comparing performance of: loda find vs js find

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

loda find

js find

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):