Benchmark: Lodash vs Lodash FP vs Native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.4/lodash.fp.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var fp = _.noConflict();
var array =  ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z']
var reducer = (r, x) => r + x

Tests:

Lodash FP
fp.reduce(reducer, '')(array)
Native
array.reduce(reducer, '')
Lodash Regular
_.reduce(array, reducer, '');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash FP
Native
Lodash Regular

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Lodash Regular

1.8M/s

Native

1.7M/s

Lodash FP

250K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Lodash Regular	1,802,048 Ops/sec
Native	1,728,565 Ops/sec
Lodash FP	249,783 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test created on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark tests the performance of different approaches for concatenating an array using the `reduce()` method.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is as follows:

* Three test cases are compared:
	1. Lodash FP (Functional Programming style)
	2. Native (JavaScript's built-in `reduce()` method without any library)
	3. Lodash Regular (Lodash's standard `reduce()` function)

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are the performance of each approach in concatenating an array using the `reduce()` method.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Lodash FP (Functional Programming style)**
	* Pros:
		+ More concise code
		+ Easier to read and understand
	* Cons:
		+ May have overhead due to function creation and call stack management
2. **Native (JavaScript's built-in `reduce()` method)**
	* Pros:
		+ Low overhead, as it uses the native JavaScript engine
		+ Optimized for performance
	* Cons:
		+ Less readable code, especially for those unfamiliar with functional programming
3. **Lodash Regular (Lodash's standard `reduce()` function)**
	* Pros:
		+ More familiar syntax to developers who use Lodash frequently
		+ May have some optimizations due to Lodash's implementation
	* Cons:
		+ Still has some overhead compared to the native `reduce()` method

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The `_noConflict()` function returns a new version of the `_` object that does not interfere with other parts of the application.

In this benchmark, Lodash's `reduce()` function is used to concatenate an array. The `_fp` alias is created using `_noConflict()`, which points to the functional programming style implementation.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark uses a special syntax for the `reduce()` method, specifically the arrow function syntax (`(r, x) => r + x`). This syntax is a shorthand way of defining functions without using the traditional function declaration syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to Lodash's `reduce()` function, you could consider:

1. **ES6 `reduce()` method**: This is the native JavaScript method that can be used directly in the browser or Node.js environment.
2. **Other utility libraries**: Other libraries like Underscore.js or Ramda provide similar functionality to Lodash and can be used as alternatives.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, syntax, and usage patterns compared to Lodash's implementation.

Lodash vs Lodash FP vs Native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Lodash FP vs Native vs Lodash Regular`

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash FP

Native

Lodash Regular

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Lodash vs Lodash FP vs Native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash FP vs Native vs Lodash Regular

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash FP

Native

Lodash Regular

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 FP vs Native vs Lodash Regular`