Benchmark: Native vs Lodash vs Lodash FP - v3

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+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:

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

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash
Lodash FP

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	4689534.0 Ops/sec
Lodash	7997755.0 Ops/sec
Lodash FP	1346608.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.

**What is tested:**

The benchmark measures the performance of three approaches for reducing an array:

1. **Native**: The built-in `reduce` method, which uses JavaScript's native implementation.
2. **Lodash**: The `_reduce` method from the popular JavaScript utility library Lodash (v4).
3. **Lodash FP**: The `fp.reduce` function from Lodash, specifically designed for functional programming.

**Options compared:**

The benchmark compares the performance of each approach:

* Native vs. Lodash
* Native vs. Lodash FP

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Native**:
	* Pros: Built-in implementation, likely to be optimized by the JavaScript engine.
	* Cons: May have limitations in terms of flexibility or expressiveness compared to other approaches.
2. **Lodash**:
	* Pros: Well-maintained library with a large community, provides a familiar API for array manipulation.
	* Cons: Adds an extra dependency (the Lodash library), may introduce overhead due to the library's initialization and garbage collection.
3. **Lodash FP**:
	* Pros: Designed specifically for functional programming, might provide better performance and readability in certain scenarios.
	* Cons: May require additional setup or learning curve compared to the native implementation or Lodash.

**Library usage:**

The benchmark uses the following library:

* Lodash (v4): A popular JavaScript utility library that provides various functions for array manipulation, string processing, and more. The `_reduce` method is used in this benchmark.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

None of the test cases use any special or experimental JavaScript features. They only rely on standard language features and the provided libraries (Lodash).

**Other alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for array reduction, consider:

* **Array.prototype.reduce()**: A more concise way to reduce an array using a callback function.
* **RxJS**: A reactive programming library that provides an `Observable` class with methods like `reduce()` or `reduceObservable()`.
* **Ponyfill/Lodash alternatives**: Other JavaScript libraries (like `lodash-es`) or polyfills (like `lodash-clone`) might provide similar functionality to Lodash.

Keep in mind that each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

Native vs Lodash vs Lodash FP - v3 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash vs Lodash FP

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash

Lodash FP

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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