Benchmark: lodash isNil vs native isNil

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var a = null;
var b = undefined;
var c = NaN;
var d = false;
var e = 'a';
var f = 0;

Tests:

lodash isNil
_.isNil(a); _.isNil(b); _.isNil(c); _.isNil(d); _.isNil(e); _.isNil(f);
native isNil
function isNil(value){ return value === null || value === undefined || typeof value === 'undefined'; } isNil(a); isNil(b); isNil(c); isNil(d); isNil(e); isNil(f);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 31 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 26 runs

native isNil

2.0M/s

lodash isNil

1.7M/s

Fastest: native isNil (1.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ native isNil: 1,975,446 ops/sec
• lodash isNil: 1,652,349 ops/sec

Firefox 5 runs

lodash isNil

1325.6M/s

native isNil

543.5M/s

Fastest: lodash isNil (2.4x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ lodash isNil: 1,325,571,584 ops/sec
• native isNil: 543,501,376 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash isNil
native isNil

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; K) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 141 on Android

View result in a separate tab

native isNil

28.5M/s

lodash isNil

24.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ native isNil	28,549,388 Ops/sec
lodash isNil	24,839,738 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript benchmarks!

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net, which compares the performance of two approaches: using the Lodash library's `isNil` function and writing a custom native implementation.

**What is tested?**

The test measures the execution time of the following operations:

* `_.isNil(a)`: Calls the Lodash library's `isNil` function with an argument `a`, which is set to `null`.
* `_.isNil(b)`: Calls the Lodash library's `isNil` function with an argument `b`, which is set to `undefined`.
* `_.isNil(c)`: Calls the Lodash library's `isNil` function with an argument `c`, which is set to `NaN` (Not a Number).
* `_.isNil(d)`: Calls the Lodash library's `isNil` function with an argument `d`, which is set to `false`.
* `_.isNil(e)`: Calls the Lodash library's `isNil` function with an argument `e`, which is set to a string `'a'`.
* `_.isNil(f)`: Calls the Lodash library's `isNil` function with an argument `f`, which is set to 0.

**Options compared**

The test compares two options:

1. **Lodash library**: The first option uses the Lodash library's `isNil` function, which is a utility function that checks if a value is null or undefined.
2. **Native implementation**: The second option uses a custom native implementation of the `isNil` function, which is written in JavaScript and checks for nullity, undefined-ness, and NaN values.

**Pros and cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Lodash library:**

Pros:

* Convenience: Using the Lodash library provides a simple and convenient way to perform common operations.
* Maintainability: The library is well-maintained and regularly updated with new features.

Cons:

* Overhead: Using the Lodash library may introduce some overhead due to the need to load the library's code, which can be slower than native implementations.
* Dependence on external libraries: Depending on the size of the project, using an external library like Lodash may add unnecessary dependencies.

**Native implementation:**

Pros:

* Performance: Native implementations are typically faster since they don't require loading any external libraries or code.
* Control: With a custom implementation, you have full control over the logic and can optimize it for specific use cases.

Cons:

* Complexity: Implementing your own `isNil` function requires more effort and expertise in JavaScript.
* Maintainability: A custom implementation may require more maintenance effort to ensure it remains up-to-date with changes in the language or other libraries.

**Library used**

The Lodash library is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this case, the `isNil` function is used to check if a value is null or undefined.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond what is typically supported in modern browsers.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark test case on MeasureThat.net!

lodash isNil vs native isNil (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `lodash isNil vs native isNil`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lodash isNil

native isNil

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 31 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 26 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

lodash isNil vs native isNil (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash isNil vs native isNil

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lodash isNil

native isNil

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 31 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 26 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `lodash isNil vs native isNil`