Benchmark: lodash vs es6 10k elements

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function double(n) {
	return n*2;
}
var data = [...Array(10000)].map((v, idx) => idx);

Tests:

lodash fp
_.map(double, data);
es6 map
data.map(double);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash fp
es6 map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/145.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 145 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

lodash fp

121K/s

es6 map

25K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ lodash fp	120,727 Ops/sec
es6 map	24,550 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to perform a simple transformation on an array of numbers:

1. Using Lodash (a popular utility library for JavaScript) with its `_.map()` function, which applies a given function to each element in the array.
2. Using native ES6 syntax (`data.map(double)`), where `double` is a simple function that doubles its input.

**Options compared**

In this benchmark, we have two options being compared:

1. Lodash with its `_.map()` function: This approach uses an external library to perform the mapping operation.
2. Native ES6 syntax: This approach relies on the built-in `Array.prototype.map()` method in JavaScript, which is optimized for performance.

**Pros and Cons**

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

**Lodash with _.map()**

Pros:

* Easier to write and maintain, as it abstracts away the mapping operation.
* May provide better error handling and robustness.

Cons:

* Adds an external dependency (the Lodash library).
* Might incur a performance overhead due to the additional abstraction layer.

**Native ES6 syntax (data.map(double))**

Pros:

* Fastest possible approach, as it leverages the optimized implementation in JavaScript.
* Eliminates the need for an external library.

Cons:

* Requires knowledge of the native API and can be more error-prone.
* May not provide the same level of abstraction and robustness as Lodash.

**Library used: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and functional programming. In this benchmark, Lodash's `_.map()` function is used to apply the doubling transformation to the input array.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

There are no special JS features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The code uses standard JavaScript and ES6 syntax.

**Other alternatives**

If you were to implement a different approach, some alternatives could include:

* Using a custom implementation of the mapping operation, perhaps using an iterative loop instead of recursion.
* Using another library or framework that provides a similar mapping function (e.g., Ramda).
* Implementing the mapping operation in a specific optimization context, such as WebAssembly or native code.

Keep in mind that these alternatives would likely introduce significant changes to the benchmark and may not be relevant for this specific use case.

lodash vs es6 10k elements (version: 0)

lodash vs es6

Comparing performance of: `lodash fp vs es6 map`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lodash fp

es6 map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

lodash vs es6 10k elements (version: 0)

lodash vs es6

Comparing performance of: lodash fp vs es6 map

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lodash fp

es6 map

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 fp vs es6 map`