Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
tesst1
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
lodassh vs native
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.min.js"></script>
Tests:
lodassh
_.times(6, () => { return ''; });
native
[...Array(6)].map(function(){ return ''});
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
lodassh
native
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):
I'll break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations. **Overview** MeasureThat.net is a platform for creating and running JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition with two test cases: "lodassh" using Lodash and "native" without any external libraries. **What is tested?** The benchmark tests the performance of two approaches: 1. **Lodash**: The "lodassh" test case uses Lodash, a popular utility library for JavaScript. It creates an array of 6 empty strings using `_.times(6, () => {\r\n return '';\r\n });`. This code is designed to be concise and efficient. 2. **Native implementation**: The "native" test case does not use any external libraries. It uses the Array.prototype.map method to create an array of 6 empty strings: `[...Array(6)].map(function(){ return ''; })`. **Comparison** The benchmark compares the performance of these two approaches: * Lodash's concise syntax vs. a native implementation using Array.prototype.map * The overhead of loading and executing an external library (Lodash) vs. no external libraries **Pros and Cons** **Lodash:** Pros: * Concise code: Lodash's `_.times` method is more compact than the equivalent native implementation. * Built-in functionality: Lodash provides a convenient way to create arrays with a specified number of elements. Cons: * Overhead: Loading and executing an external library introduces additional overhead, which may impact performance. * Dependence on the library: The test case relies on Lodash being available and properly loaded. **Native implementation** Pros: * No dependencies: The native implementation does not rely on any external libraries, reducing overhead. * Flexibility: The implementation is more flexible, as developers can choose to use it instead of relying on a library. Cons: * More verbose code: The Array.prototype.map method requires more lines of code than Lodash's concise syntax. * Potential performance differences: Depending on the JavaScript engine and environment, the native implementation might not be faster or slower than the Lodash version. **Library usage** Lodash is a utility library that provides various functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this case, `_times` is used to create an array with a specified number of elements. The library's purpose is to provide pre-built functionality to simplify common tasks, making code more concise and readable. **Special JS features** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in the benchmark definition. Both test cases use standard JavaScript methods and features (Array.prototype.map, _.times). **Alternatives** Other alternatives for this type of benchmarking include: * Using a different utility library (e.g., jQuery) * Implementing the array creation logic from scratch without relying on external libraries * Using a performance testing framework like Webpack's benchmarks or jsperf
Related benchmarks:
isEmpty vs. vanilla
isUndefined
Random perf
lodash vs radash 3
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?