Benchmark: lodash flow vs ramda pipe

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash-fp/0.10.4/lodash-fp.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30];
var isOdd = n => n % 2 === 1;

Tests:

ramda
R.pipe(R.map(R.inc), R.filter(isOdd), R.take(5), R.last);
lodash/fp
_.flow(_.map(x => x + 1), _.filter(isOdd), _.take(5), _.last);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
ramda
lodash/fp

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 136 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

ramda

641K/s

lodash/fp

356K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ ramda	640,997 Ops/sec
lodash/fp	356,387 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, the different approaches compared, their pros and cons, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two JavaScript libraries: Lodash Flow (fp) and Ramda. Both libraries provide functional programming utilities, but they differ in their implementation approach.

**Lodash Flow vs. Ramda**

Both libraries are used to perform a specific operation on an array of numbers: filtering out even numbers using the `isOdd` function, taking the last 5 elements, and executing these operations sequentially.

The main difference between Lodash Flow and Ramda is their functional programming paradigm:

* **Ramda**: uses a pure-functional programming style, where functions are composed together to create a new pipeline of operations. This approach encourages immutability and avoids side effects.
* **Lodash Flow**: also follows a functional programming style but provides more verbose syntax compared to Ramda. It's designed to be more compatible with traditional JavaScript code.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Ramda**
	* Uses the `R.pipe` function to compose operations: `R.map`, `R.filter`, `R.take`, and `R.last`.
2. **Lodash Flow**
	* Uses the `_.flow` function to chain operations together: `.map(x => x + 1)`, `.filter(isOdd)`, `.take(5)`, and `.last`.

**Library Libraries**

In the benchmark, Ramda is included via a CDN link (`//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js`), while Lodash Flow is loaded via its own CDN link (`//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash-fp/0.10.4/lodash-fp.min.js`). Both libraries provide their own versions of the `isOdd` function.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

In this benchmark, there are no special JavaScript features or syntax being used, as both libraries follow conventional functional programming approaches.

**Pros and Cons**

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

* **Ramda**:
	+ Pros:
		- Concise and expressive pipeline syntax
		- Pure-functional programming paradigm promotes immutability and predictability
		- Well-documented and widely adopted library
	+ Cons:
		- Steeper learning curve due to unfamiliar syntax
		- May require additional setup for certain use cases (e.g., handling errors)
* **Lodash Flow**:
	+ Pros:
		- More compatible with traditional JavaScript code
		- Verbose syntax may be more comfortable for some developers
		- Provides a familiar API for those already using Lodash
	+ Cons:
		- More verbose syntax can lead to longer execution times
		- May not be as efficient due to additional overhead from the fp library

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, consider:

* **Underscore.js**: a popular utility library that provides functional programming utilities, including `map`, `filter`, and `take`.
* **FPJS**: a JavaScript implementation of the Haskell programming language, which includes functional programming concepts.
* **ClojureScript**: a dynamically typed, multi-paradigm language that compiles to JavaScript and provides a strong focus on functional programming.

These alternatives offer different trade-offs in terms of syntax, performance, and compatibility with traditional JavaScript code.

lodash flow vs ramda pipe (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `ramda vs lodash/fp`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

ramda

lodash/fp

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

lodash flow vs ramda pipe (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: ramda vs lodash/fp

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

ramda

lodash/fp

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: `ramda vs lodash/fp`