Benchmark: Lodash vs Ramdasdfsdf

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

  var data = _.range(10000).map(function(i) {
    return {
      counter: i
    }
  });
  
  function isOdd(num) {
    return num % 2 === 1;
  }
  
  function square(num) {
    return num * num;
  }
  
  function lessThanThreeDigits(num) {
    return num.toString().length < 3;
  }

Tests:

Lodash
var result = _.chain(data) .map(item => item.counter) //.filter(isOdd) .map(square) .filter(lessThanThreeDigits) .value();
Ramda without relying on currying or composition
var result = R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits, R.map(square, R.filter(isOdd, R.pluck('counter', data))));
Ramda with currying and composition
var result = R.pipe( R.pluck('counter'), //R.filter(isOdd), R.map(square), R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits) )(data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Ramda without relying on currying or composition
Ramda with currying and composition

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.198 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	1095.1 Ops/sec
Ramda without relying on currying or composition	1085.5 Ops/sec
Ramda with currying and composition	712.4 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the details of this JavaScript benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of Lodash and Ramda in executing specific JavaScript functions on a dataset containing 10,000 elements with counter values. The test cases involve filtering, mapping, and transforming data using these libraries.

**Options Compared**

There are three test cases:

1. **Lodash**: This approach uses the `_.chain()` method to chain together multiple Lodash functions: `_map()`, `_filter()`, and `_value()`.
2. **Ramda without relying on currying or composition**: In this case, Ramda's `R.filter()` function is used directly with a filter function, followed by `R.map()` and then another filter using `R.filter()`. This approach does not utilize Ramda's functional programming features.
3. **Ramda with currying and composition**: This test case uses Ramda's `R.pipe()` function to compose multiple functions together: `R.pluck('counter')`, `R.map(square)`, and `R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits)`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash**:
	+ Pros: Easy to read and understand, as it uses a familiar, imperative programming style.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the overhead of chaining multiple functions together.
* **Ramda without relying on currying or composition**:
	+ Pros: Can be faster since it avoids the function composition and currying process.
	+ Cons: Less readable and less maintainable, as it uses a more imperative style and lacks functional programming features.
* **Ramda with currying and composition**:
	+ Pros: More concise and expressive, as it leverages Ramda's functional programming features.
	+ Cons: May be slower due to the additional function creation and lookup overhead.

**Library and Purpose**

1. **Lodash**: A popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. Lodash is designed to be fast and efficient while also being easy to use.
2. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that builds upon the concept of immutable data structures and pure functions. Ramda aims to provide a concise and expressive way to solve complex problems.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in this benchmark. The code uses standard ES5 syntax, with some minor modifications to accommodate the `_.chain()` method from Lodash.

**Other Alternatives**

Some alternative libraries that could be used for this benchmark include:

* **Immutable.js**: A library specifically designed for working with immutable data structures and pure functions.
* **Purescript**: A functional programming language that aims to provide a concise and expressive way to solve complex problems.
* **Cypress**: A testing framework that provides some of the same utility functions as Lodash, but with a focus on testing and debugging.

These alternatives could potentially be used in place of Lodash and Ramda, depending on the specific requirements of the benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs Ramdasdfsdf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Ramda without relying on currying or composition vs Ramda with currying and composition

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Ramda without relying on currying or composition

Ramda with currying and composition

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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