Benchmark: Really simple Ramda vs. Lodash

Really simple Ramda vs. Lodash (version: 0)

Compares performance on the same task using Lodash vs two styles of Ramda vs two styles of "native" Javascript. In all cases the task is pulling "counter" property from each item in an array, filtering out odd items, squaring them, then returning those squared values that have less than two digits.

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Ramda with currying and composition

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

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/4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = _.range(10000).map(function(i) {
  return {
    counter: i
  }
});
function square(num) {
  return num * num;
}

Tests:

Lodash
var result = _.chain(data) .map(square) .value();
Ramda with currying and composition
var result = R.pipe( R.map(square), )(data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Ramda with currying and composition

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance can be a challenging task, but let's break down the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares the performance of three approaches to achieve a similar result:

1. **Lodash**: A popular utility library that provides a functional programming style for JavaScript.
2. **Ramda with currying and composition**: Ramda is another functional programming library, but this test case uses two specific styles: currying (using `R.pipe`) and composition (by chaining methods).
3. **Native JavaScript**: The third approach uses native JavaScript functions to achieve the same result.

**What options are being compared?**

The benchmark compares the performance of Lodash and Ramda with different styles (`currying` vs `composition`) against the native JavaScript approach.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Lodash**:
	* Pros: Easy to use, extensive API, well-maintained.
	* Cons: Additional overhead due to library dependencies, slower performance compared to native JavaScript.
2. **Ramda with currying and composition**:
	* Pros: Lightweight, efficient, and flexible (currying and composition allow for more control over function composition).
	* Cons: Steeper learning curve due to functional programming concepts, may require additional setup for some users.
3. **Native JavaScript**:
	* Pros: Fastest performance, minimal overhead, easy to understand and use.
	* Cons: Requires manual implementation of the desired logic, may not be as concise or expressive as other approaches.

**Other considerations:**

When working with functional programming libraries like Lodash and Ramda, it's essential to consider the trade-offs between readability, maintainability, and performance. In this case, the benchmark highlights the importance of choosing an approach that balances these factors for your specific use case.

**Library explanations:**

1. **Lodash**: A utility library that provides a wide range of functions for working with data structures, string manipulation, and more.
2. **Ramda**: Another functional programming library that offers a compact API for working with data, but requires a deeper understanding of functional programming concepts.

The benchmark uses the `R` alias for Ramda to provide a concise syntax.

**Special JS feature:**

There is no special JavaScript feature mentioned in this benchmark, so we can focus on the standard JavaScript implementation and library usage.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/14.0.3 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 14 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	1053.2 Ops/sec
Ramda with currying and composition	1060.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks: