Benchmark: Find: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'joey',  'age': 32 },
  { 'user': 'ross',    'age': 41 },
  { 'user': 'chandler', 'age': 39 }
]

// Underscore was loaded last, so this saves an instance of underscore and resets _ to it's previous value (lodash).
var _underscore = _.noConflict();
// This saves an instance of lodash and resets _ to it's previous value (undefined).
var _lodash = _.noConflict();

Tests:

Native
users.find(function (o) { return o.age < 40; })
Underscore
_underscore.find(users, function (o) { return o.age < 40; })
Lodash
_lodash.find(users, function (o) { return o.age < 40; })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Underscore
Lodash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/125.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 125 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Native

25.4M/s

Underscore

9.9M/s

Lodash

8.5M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Native	25,432,164 Ops/sec
Underscore	9,933,571 Ops/sec
Lodash	8,451,802 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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros/cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test measures the performance of three different ways to find an element in an array using the `find` method:

1. Native JavaScript (`Native`)
2. Underscore.js (a utility library for functional programming) (`Underscore`)
3. Lodash (another popular utility library with a broader range of functions) (`Lodash`)

**Benchmark Preparation Code**

The script preparation code loads both Underscore and Lodash, but not in the same instance as native JavaScript. This is done to avoid potential conflicts between libraries.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML includes scripts for both Lodash and Underscore, which will be loaded before running the benchmark tests.

**Individual Test Cases**

Each test case measures a specific scenario:

1. `Native`: Finds an element in the `users` array where the age is less than 40 using only native JavaScript.
2. `_underscore.find(users, ...)` (Underscore): Uses Underscore's `find` method to achieve the same result as above.
3. `_lodash.find(users, ...)` (Lodash): Uses Lodash's `find` method with a similar syntax.

**Performance Comparison**

The benchmark measures the performance of each test case by executing each scenario multiple times and measuring the execution time per second. The results are:

* Native: 25,432,164 executions/second
* Underscore: 9,933,571 executions/second (about 38% slower than native)
* Lodash: 8,451,802 executions/second (about 33% slower than native)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native JavaScript**:
	* Pros:
		+ Lightweight and optimized for performance.
		+ Easy to use and understand.
	* Cons:
		+ May not be as efficient for complex data processing or large datasets.
2. **Underscore.js**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a concise and readable syntax for functional programming.
		+ Can simplify code in some cases.
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce additional overhead due to the library itself.
		+ Can lead to slower performance compared to native JavaScript.
3. **Lodash**:
	* Pros:
		+ Offers a broader range of functions and utilities for data manipulation.
		+ Can simplify code in some cases.
	* Cons:
		+ May introduce additional overhead due to the library itself.
		+ Can lead to slower performance compared to native JavaScript.

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Performance requirements: If you need high-performance data processing, native JavaScript might be a better choice. For more complex or larger datasets, Lodash's additional functions might be beneficial.
* Code readability and maintainability: Underscore.js and Lodash can simplify code in some cases, making it easier to read and understand. However, this comes at the cost of potential performance overhead.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for functional programming and data manipulation include:

* Ramda (another popular utility library with a different syntax)
* Moment.js (for date and time manipulation)
* jQuery (a more comprehensive library for DOM manipulation and event handling)

Keep in mind that this benchmark is specific to the `find` method, and performance differences may vary depending on the specific use case or dataset.

Find: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Native vs Underscore vs Lodash`

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Native

Underscore

Lodash

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Find: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Underscore vs Lodash

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Native

Underscore

Lodash

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: `Native vs Underscore vs Lodash`