Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash flow vs ramda pipe
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
ramda vs lodash/fp
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
ramda
640997.1 Ops/sec
lodash/fp
356386.8 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
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.
Related benchmarks:
Ramda pipe vs lodash flow
lodash flow vs ramdajs pipe
lodash flow 4.17.5 vs ramda pipe 0.27.1
lodash flow vs ramda pipe v2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?