Benchmark: filter(isObject) : Lodash vs Ramda

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.27.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = R.range(0, 10000).map(function(i) {
      return Math.floor(Math.random() * i) % 2 === 0 ? {
          counter: i
      } : null;
  });

Tests:

Ramda
const result = data.filter(R.is(Object))
Lodash
const result = data.filter(_.isObject)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
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.

**What is being tested on the provided JSON?**

The provided JSON represents two JavaScript microbenchmarks that test the filtering performance of two popular functional programming libraries: Lodash and Ramda.

In this benchmark, 10,000 random objects with an "isObject" property are generated. The purpose of the benchmark is to compare the execution times of the `filter` method on these objects using both Lodash and Ramda's `isObject` function.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

1. **Lodash**: Uses the `_` symbol (a common alias for the Lodash library) and the `_.isObject` function to filter out non-object values from the array.
2. **Ramda**: Uses the `R.` prefix (a common alias for the Ramda library) and the `R.is(Object)` function to achieve the same filtering.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Lodash:**
	* Pros:
		+ Widely used and well-maintained library with a large community.
		+ Easy to use and learn, especially for developers familiar with jQuery's _.method syntax.
	* Cons:
		+ May have additional dependencies or overhead due to its extensive feature set.
2. **Ramda:**
	* Pros:
		+ Strong focus on functional programming principles and immutability.
		+ Smaller footprint compared to Lodash, making it a good choice for projects with limited space constraints.
	* Cons:
		+ May require more setup or understanding of its syntax, which can be a barrier for some developers.

**Library usage**

Both libraries are popular choices in JavaScript development. Lodash provides an extensive set of utility functions for common tasks, while Ramda focuses on functional programming and data processing.

In this benchmark, both libraries achieve the same filtering result using their respective `isObject` functions. However, the execution times may vary depending on various factors such as the JavaScript engine, browser, or platform used.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is solely on comparing the performance of two specific libraries' filtering implementations.

**Other alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries for functional programming and data processing in JavaScript, some notable options include:

1. **ES6 Function API**: Provides a lightweight way to implement functional programming concepts without relying on external libraries.
2. **MochaScript**: A functional programming library that aims to simplify the development of complex algorithms and data structures.
3. **RxJS** (Reactive Extensions for JavaScript): While not primarily a filtering library, RxJS provides a powerful way to handle asynchronous data streams using observable sequences.

Keep in mind that each library has its strengths and weaknesses, and choosing the right one depends on your specific project requirements and preferences.

Related benchmarks:

filter(isObject) : Lodash vs Ramda (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs Lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

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):