Benchmark: empty arr - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Tests:

vanilla
const empty = [].length === 0
lodash
const empty = _.isEmpty([])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
vanilla
lodash

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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the benchmark and its various components, explaining what's being tested, compared, and some pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition JSON**

The provided benchmark definition is a JSON object that defines two test cases:

* `Name`: "empty arr" (the name of the benchmark)
* `Description`: null (no description is provided)
* `Script Preparation Code`: null (no code is required to prepare the script before running the benchmark)
* `Html Preparation Code`: A link to a JavaScript library, `lodash.js`, which will be loaded into the HTML page before running the benchmarks.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **Vanilla**: The first test case checks if an empty array has a length of 0 using only vanilla JavaScript.
2. **Lodash**: The second test case checks if an empty array is empty using the `_.isEmpty()` function from the loaded `lodash` library.

**Comparison**

The two test cases are comparing:

* Vanilla JavaScript vs. Lodash for performing the same task (checking if an empty array has a certain property).
* Performance differences between these approaches, specifically how fast they can execute this simple operation.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Vanilla JavaScript:**

Pros:

* No external dependencies required.
* Simple and straightforward code.
* Potential performance advantages for small, lightweight applications.

Cons:

* May be slower due to the overhead of parsing and executing the `length` property check.
* Limited to performing this specific operation only.

**Lodash:**

Pros:

* Provides a simple and concise way to perform the same task.
* No need to manually parse or execute the `_isEmpty()` function.
* Can be useful for larger applications that require more complex operations.

Cons:

* Requires loading an external library, which can introduce additional overhead.
* May be slower due to the time it takes to load and initialize the library.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks, such as array manipulation, string processing, and more. In this benchmark, `lodash` is used specifically for its `_.isEmpty()` function, which checks if an array or object is empty.

**Other Considerations**

* The use of the `length` property to check if an array is empty is a common pattern in JavaScript. However, it may not be the most efficient way to perform this operation, especially for larger arrays.
* The loading of the `lodash` library introduces additional overhead that could affect performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to vanilla JavaScript and Lodash could include:

* Using a different library or framework that provides an optimized implementation of the same function (e.g., a specialized array library).
* Implementing the operation manually using bitwise operations or other techniques.
* Using a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler to optimize the code for performance.

However, these alternatives are likely to be more complex and may not offer significant performance benefits for this specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

empty arr (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: vanilla vs lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

vanilla

lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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