Benchmark: lodash map vs. native map

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var stuff = [
  { name: 'pi', value: 3.14 },
  { name: 'hundred', value: 100 },
  { name: 'truthy', value: true },
  { name: 'falsy', value: false },
  { name: 'estring', value: '2.71828' },
]

Tests:

_.map
_.map(stuff, (item) => item.value, {})
native map
stuff.map((item) => item.value, {})

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.map
native map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark in question compares the performance of two approaches: using the Lodash library's `map` function versus the native `map` method.

The test case uses an array of objects, `stuff`, which contains various types of values (numbers, booleans, strings). The purpose of this setup is to demonstrate how both methods handle different data types.

**Library Used**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this case, the `map` function is used to transform each item in the `stuff` array.

**Native Map Method**

The native `map` method is built into the JavaScript language and can be used without any additional libraries. It takes a callback function as an argument, which is executed for each element in the array, returning a new value that will be included in the resulting array.

**Pros and Cons of Native Map Method**

Pros:

* Fast and lightweight
* No dependency on external libraries
* Easy to use

Cons:

* Can be less readable due to the callback function
* May require more error handling due to potential null or undefined values

**Pros and Cons of Lodash `map` Function**

Pros:

* More readable code, as it uses a functional programming style
* Handles errors and edge cases for you
* Typically faster than native methods, especially for large datasets

Cons:

* Requires an external library, which may have dependencies or overhead
* May not be compatible with all browsers or environments

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between the two approaches, consider the trade-off between readability and performance. If you prioritize ease of use and don't mind a slight overhead from the Lodash library, the `map` function might be a better choice. However, if you're working with large datasets or need maximum performance, using the native `map` method might be the way to go.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. Both approaches use standard JavaScript functions and data types.

**Alternatives**

If you don't have Lodash available or prefer not to use it, there are alternative libraries that provide a `map` function, such as:

* Ramda
* Underscore.js (another popular utility library)
* Your own custom implementation of the `map` function

Keep in mind that these alternatives might introduce additional dependencies or overhead.

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/96.0.4664.110 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 96 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.map	3849286.5 Ops/sec
native map	3086196.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash map vs. native map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.map vs native map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.map

native map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 28 days ago):