Benchmark: Lodash vs Native reduce - 2020 test

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.obj = {};
var arr = []
for (var i = 0, len = 100000; i < len; i++) { 
    arr.push(i);
}

Tests:

Lodash
_.reduce(arr, (acc, val) => { return acc + val; }, {})
Native
arr.reduce((acc, val) => { return acc + val; }, {})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
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):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll explain the benchmark in detail.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents two test cases that compare the performance of Lodash's `reduce` function with JavaScript's native `reduce` method. The benchmark aims to measure which approach is faster for summing up an array of numbers.

**Options Compared**

There are two options compared:

1. **Lodash's `reduce`**: This implementation uses the Lodash library, a popular utility library that provides functional programming helpers.
2. **Native `reduce`**: This implementation uses JavaScript's native `reduce` method, which is built-in to the language.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash's `reduce`**:

Pros:

* Convenience: Using a well-known library like Lodash can simplify code development and maintenance.
* Performance: In this specific benchmark, Lodash's implementation may outperform the native method due to its optimized codebase.

Cons:

* Overhead: Including an external library adds complexity and potential overhead in terms of download time, parsing, and initialization.
* Dependence on Lodash: The test is dependent on the availability and version of the Lodash library.

**Native `reduce`**:

Pros:

* No additional dependencies: The native method does not require any external libraries or dependencies.
* Built-in performance: JavaScript's built-in methods are optimized for performance and can be a good choice when no external dependencies are needed.

Cons:

* Complexity: Implementing the `reduce` function from scratch may add complexity to code development, especially for developers without prior experience with this method.
* Performance variation: The native method's performance may vary across different JavaScript engines and versions.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers, including the `reduce` function. It's designed to simplify code development and improve maintainability by providing pre-built functions for common tasks. In this benchmark, Lodash's implementation of `reduce` uses a callback function with two arguments: the accumulator (`acc`) and the current value (`val`). The returned value is then used as the new accumulator.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in the provided code snippets. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript features, such as arrow functions, async/await, and classes, may be present in other benchmarks or tests.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to modify this benchmark to compare other options, you could consider adding test cases for:

* Other utility libraries (e.g., Moment.js, Underscore.js)
* Custom implementations of the `reduce` function
* Other programming languages or frameworks that provide a similar functionality (e.g., Python's `sum()` function)
* Different JavaScript engines or versions (e.g., Node.js vs. browser-based JavaScript)

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs Native reduce - 2020 test (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Native

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):