Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Filter by Ramda.prop() vs native js
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Ramda vs Native JS
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="//cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/ramda@latest/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
var list = [] for (let i = 0; i < 200; i++) { list.push({ plugin: { i: i } }) }
Tests:
Ramda
list.filter(R.prop('plugin')).map(R.prop('plugin'))
Native JS
list.filter(x => x.plugin).map(x => x.plugin)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Ramda
Native JS
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):
Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark. **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for filtering and processing an array: Ramda's `prop()` function versus native JavaScript syntax. **Options compared:** There are two test cases: 1. **Ramda**: This approach uses the Ramda library to filter and process the array. Specifically, it uses `list.filter(R.prop('plugin')).map(R.prop('plugin'))`. 2. **Native JS**: This approach uses native JavaScript syntax to achieve the same filtering and processing. It uses `list.filter(x => x.plugin).map(x => x.plugin)`. **Pros and Cons:** **Ramda Approach:** Pros: * Simplifies complex logic using a functional programming library * Reduces code duplication by providing a reusable function for extracting properties Cons: * Requires the Ramda library to be loaded and instantiated, which may introduce additional overhead * May require more memory due to the library's presence **Native JS Approach:** Pros: * No external dependencies or libraries are required * Optimized for performance, as it leverages native JavaScript syntax and built-in functions Cons: * Code duplication is more apparent, requiring more boilerplate code * More error-prone if not written correctly, as it relies on explicit property extraction **Library (Ramda):** Ramda is a popular functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a set of reusable functions for data processing and manipulation. In this benchmark, `R.prop()` is used to extract properties from objects in the array. Ramda's goal is to simplify code by providing a consistent and predictable way of performing common operations. **Special JS feature (not applicable):** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. **Other alternatives:** If you're interested in exploring other approaches, here are a few options: * **Lodash**: Another popular utility library for JavaScript that provides similar functionality to Ramda. * **ES6 Template Literals**: Using template literals with `Object destructuring` (e.g., `list.filter(({ plugin }) => plugin)`). * **Custom implementation**: Writing your own custom function or loop for filtering and processing the array. Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the best choice depends on the specific requirements of your project.
Related benchmarks:
ramda clone vs spread
includes - ramda vs native
Ramda.prop() vs native js
Ramda range vs Array.from
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?