Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
map vs _.map
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
map vs my map vs _.map
Created:
5 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
Script Preparation code:
var arr = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
Tests:
map
arr.map(v=>' hi')
my map
function myMap(arr,fun) { if(!_.isArray(arr)) return -1; let result = Array(length),index; while (++index < length) { result[index] = iteratee(array[index], index, array); } return result; } myMap(arr,v=>' hi')
_.map
_.map(arr,v=>' hi')
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
map
my map
_.map
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 break down the provided benchmarking scenario. **Overview** The test compares three different approaches to achieve the same result: transforming an array of strings by prepending a fixed string using JavaScript's `map` function. **Options compared** 1. **Native JavaScript `map` function**: The built-in `map()` method is used with the arrow function syntax `v => ' hi'`. 2. **Lodash `.map` function**: The `_` alias for Lodash, a popular utility library, is used with its `map` function. 3. **Custom implementation (`my map`)**: A custom implementation of the `map` function is provided, which checks if the input array is an actual array and then iterates over it to apply the transformation. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Native JavaScript `map` function**: * Pros: Native performance, concise syntax. * Cons: May have performance variations due to browser optimizations or JavaScript engine differences. 2. **Lodash `.map` function**: * Pros: Well-maintained library, widely used, and optimized for performance. * Cons: External dependency (Lodash), may introduce overhead due to library loading and initialization. 3. **Custom implementation (`my map`)**: * Pros: Direct control over the transformation process, no external dependencies. * Cons: More verbose syntax, potential performance impact due to manual iteration. **Library used** The custom implementation uses Lodash's `_` alias for its `map` function. This indicates that the author of the benchmark was familiar with and chose to use this utility library. **Special JS feature or syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this test, other than the arrow function syntax (`=>`) which is a modern JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015. **Other alternatives** If you wanted to compare different approaches, you could consider adding more options, such as: * Using `forEach` instead of `map` * Implementing the transformation using `reduce` * Using a different library or framework (e.g., jQuery) * Comparing performance with and without using a library However, for this specific benchmark, the three options compared provide a clear comparison of native JavaScript, Lodash, and custom implementation.
Related benchmarks:
lodash map vs. vanilla map
native map vs lodash _.map
Native map vs Lodash map
array.map vs _.map
Array Map Vs Lodash Map (1)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?