<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.4/lodash.fp.min.js'></script>
var array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z']
var reducer = (r, x) => r + x
_.reduce(reducer, '')(array)
array.reduce(reducer, '')
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Lodash FP | |
Native |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Lodash FP | 302273.5 Ops/sec |
Native | 3453948.0 Ops/sec |
Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.
Benchmark Test
The test compares the performance of two approaches to perform a reduction operation on an array:
reduce()
method of JavaScript arrays, with a custom reducer function (reducer
) that takes two arguments: the accumulator (r
) and the current element (x
).lodash.fp.reduce()
method from the Lodash library, which is designed for functional programming.Options Compared
The benchmark tests the performance of both approaches on a large array of 26 elements. The test measures the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) for each approach.
Pros and Cons
reduce()
method has several advantages:reduce()
method has some advantages:Library: Lodash
Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for tasks such as:
In this benchmark, Lodash's reduce()
method with functional programming (FP) support is used to perform the reduction operation.
Special JS Feature/Syntax
There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code only uses standard JavaScript and Lodash library functions.
Alternatives
If you want to explore alternative approaches, here are a few options:
map()
and forEach()
in combination.Keep in mind that each alternative approach may have its own pros and cons, and may not be suitable for every use case.