Benchmark: native find fn vs lodash _.find

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'joey',  'age': 32 },
  { 'user': 'ross',    'age': 41 },
  { 'user': 'chandler', 'age': 39 }
]

Tests:

array find
// Native users.find(o => o.age === 41)
_.find
_.find(users, ['age', 41])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array find
_.find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to filter an array of objects in JavaScript: native `Array.prototype.find()` method versus the popular utility library Lodash's `_find` function.

**Options Compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **Native `Array.prototype.find()` method**: This is a built-in JavaScript method that searches for the first element in an array that satisfies a provided testing function.
2. **Lodash's `_find` function**: This is a utility function from the Lodash library that performs the same filtering operation as the native `Array.prototype.find()` method.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Native `Array.prototype.find()` method:**

Pros:

* Built-in JavaScript method, so it's likely to be highly optimized for performance.
* Simple and straightforward implementation.
* No external dependency required (i.e., no additional library installation).

Cons:

* May have slower performance due to the overhead of dynamic typing and potential method lookups in the V8 engine.
* Limited control over the filtering logic.

**Lodash's `_find` function:**

Pros:

* High-performance implementation optimized for common use cases.
* Provides more flexibility and control over the filtering logic through various options (e.g., `thisArg`, `bindCallback`, `iteratee`).
* Reduces boilerplate code required for filtering operations.

Cons:

* External dependency required, which might slow down benchmark execution due to additional library overhead.
* Potential performance impact if not optimized correctly by Lodash's authors.

**Library and Purpose**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functional programming helpers. In this specific case, `_find` is a filtering function that allows you to find the first element in an array that satisfies a provided testing function. The `thisArg` option (not explicitly mentioned in the benchmark) is used to specify the context for the callback function.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

This benchmark does not appear to utilize any special JavaScript features or syntax, such as async/await, Promises, or ES6 classes.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative filtering methods, here are a few options:

1. **Array.prototype.reduce()**: You can use `reduce()` with an initial value that matches the desired filter condition.
2. **Array.prototype.some()**: Similar to `reduce()`, but returns `true` as soon as the first matching element is found.
3. **Use a custom filtering function**: Instead of relying on built-in methods or external libraries, you can create your own filtering function using JavaScript's basic operators and logic.

In summary, this benchmark compares two popular approaches for filtering arrays in JavaScript: native `Array.prototype.find()` versus Lodash's `_find` function. Both have their pros and cons, but the native method is likely to be slower due to performance overhead, while Lodash's implementation provides more flexibility and control at a potential cost of additional library dependency.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/87.0.4280.141 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 87 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array find	14536490.0 Ops/sec
_.find	2263108.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

native find fn vs lodash _.find (version: 0)

Compare the new ES6 spread operator with the traditional concat() method

Comparing performance of: array find vs _.find

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array find

_.find

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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