Benchmark: Lodash isPlainObject vs JS Type Check

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.20/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var sampleObject = {
        "id": "0001",
        "type": "donut",
        "name": "Cake",
        "ppu": 0.55
    };
var isObject;

Tests:

Lodash isPlainObject
isObject = _.isPlainObject(sampleObject);
JS Type Check
isObject = typeof sampleObject === 'object' && sampleObject != null;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash isPlainObject
JS Type Check

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash isPlainObject	2471084.8 Ops/sec
JS Type Check	7125223.0 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 JSON and benchmark definition to understand what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches to determine if an object is plain in JavaScript:

1. **Lodash `isPlainObject`**: This approach uses the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript, to check if an object is plain.
2. **JS Type Check**: This approach uses a simple type check using the `typeof` operator and the `!= null` condition.

**Options Compared**

The two approaches being compared are:

1. **Lodash `isPlainObject`**: This method is using a dedicated library to perform the check, which might be more accurate but also adds an extra dependency.
2. **JS Type Check**: This method uses a simple and lightweight approach that's built into JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Lodash `isPlainObject`**:
	* Pros:
		+ More accurate results, as it's specifically designed to check for plain objects.
		+ Reduces the risk of false negatives or positives due to edge cases.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an extra dependency (the Lodash library) which might slow down the benchmark.
2. **JS Type Check**:
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and fast, as it's a built-in JavaScript function.
		+ No extra dependencies or overhead.
	* Cons:
		+ Might produce false positives or negatives due to edge cases (e.g., objects with `null` properties).

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as:

* Array manipulation
* String manipulation
* Object manipulation (including checking if an object is plain)
* Function utility functions

The `isPlainObject` function in particular checks if an object has the following properties:

* No prototype chain
* No non-enumerable properties
* No Symbol properties

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you want to test alternative approaches, here are a few options:

1. **Use a different library**: Instead of Lodash, you could use other libraries like `lodash-plainobject` or write your own implementation.
2. **Implement a custom type check**: You could implement a custom type check function using JavaScript alone, without relying on the `typeof` operator or any external libraries.
3. **Use a different benchmarking library**: Instead of MeasureThat.net, you could use other benchmarking tools like Benchmark.js or jsperf.

These alternatives would require careful consideration of their performance and accuracy in relation to your specific use case.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash isPlainObject vs JS Type Check (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash isPlainObject vs JS Type Check

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash isPlainObject

JS Type Check

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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