Benchmark: map undescore vs vanila

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.users = [
  { name: 'Ваня', level: '3' },
  { name: 'Саша', level: '1' },
  { name: 'Маша', level: '2' },
  { name: 'Ника', level: '3' },
  { name: 'Вера', level: '1' },
  { name: 'Саша', level: '2' },
  { name: 'Ваня', level: '2' }
];

Tests:

Underscore sortBy()
_.map(users, u => u.name + u.level )
Vanilla sort()
users.map(u => u.name + u.level)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Underscore sortBy()
Vanilla sort()

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 what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is comparing two approaches: using the Underscore.js library (`_.map`) versus using vanilla JavaScript (`users.map`).

**Options compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Underscore.js (`_.map`)**: A popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a concise way to perform common tasks, such as array manipulation.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript (`users.map`)**: The built-in `map()` method of the JavaScript Array prototype, which allows you to iterate over an array and apply a transformation function to each element.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

**Underscore.js (`_.map`)**

Pros:

* Concise and expressive syntax
* Often faster due to optimized native code generated by the library
* Supports various data structures, not just arrays

Cons:

* Requires an additional library to be included in your project
* May add overhead due to the library's initialization and garbage collection

**Vanilla JavaScript (`users.map`)**

Pros:

* No additional library is required
* Native code generation can lead to better performance for specific use cases
* Easy to understand and implement for developers familiar with vanilla JavaScript

Cons:

* Syntax can be less readable and more verbose compared to Underscore.js
* May not perform as well on certain data structures or large datasets

**Library: Underscore.js**

Underscore.js is a lightweight utility library that provides various functions for manipulating arrays, objects, and other data structures. The `_.map()` function is used to transform each element in an array by applying a provided function.

**Special JS feature/Syntax**

There isn't any specific JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript syntax.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider the following:

* Lodash.js: Another popular utility library that provides similar functions to Underscore.js.
* Array.prototype.reduce(): An alternative method for transforming arrays, which can be more efficient than `map()` for certain scenarios.
* Functional programming techniques (e.g., using `forEach()`, `filter()`, and `reduce()`) for manipulating arrays.

Keep in mind that the choice of library or approach depends on your specific use case, project requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

map undescore vs vanila (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Underscore sortBy() vs Vanilla sort()

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Underscore sortBy()

Vanilla sort()

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):