Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
lodash vs es6 10k elements
(version: 0)
lodash vs es6
Comparing performance of:
lodash fp vs es6 map
Created:
6 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
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>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodash fp
es6 map
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 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
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
Test name
Executions per second
lodash fp
120727.1 Ops/sec
es6 map
24550.3 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
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.
Related benchmarks:
Map (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash)333
lodash map vs es6 map (10000 times)
Map (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash) latest 2021-01-18
Map (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash) v2
Map (Native vs Ramda 0.27.2 vs Lodash 4.17.21) 50k
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?