Benchmark: Map: Lodash vs Native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(1000000).fill({ filtering: true, mapping: 42 });

Tests:

Native filter-map
data.map(({ mapping }) => mapping)
Lodash filter-map
_.map(data, 'mapping')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native filter-map
Lodash filter-map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/92.0.4515.131 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 92 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native filter-map	81.9 Ops/sec
Lodash filter-map	233.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's happening in this benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches to filter and map data in JavaScript:

1. **Native**: Using built-in JavaScript methods (`Array.prototype.map()`) without any external library.
2. **Lodash`: Using the popular utility library Lodash, which provides a function `_.map()` for mapping over arrays.

**Options compared**

The benchmark is comparing two options:

* Native: Using native JavaScript `map()` method with an arrow function as the callback.
* Lodash: Using the `_.map()` function from Lodash to achieve the same filtering and mapping operation.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

**Native (built-in JavaScript) approach**

Pros:

* No external dependency, so no extra download or overhead.
* Optimized for performance by being a native implementation.
* Easy to use and understand for most developers.

Cons:

* Limited functionality compared to Lodash, as it only supports filtering and mapping over arrays.
* Arrow functions are not supported in older browsers.

**Lodash approach**

Pros:

* Provides a more comprehensive set of utility functions that can be used together.
* Supports older browsers with limited `map()` support (although this might not be a concern for modern browsers).

Cons:

* Requires an additional download and import, which adds overhead.
* Additional complexity due to the need to import and initialize Lodash.

**Library and its purpose**

The library in question is **Lodash**, which is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a collection of functions for tasks such as:

* Array manipulation (`map()`, `filter()`, etc.)
* String manipulation (`trim()`, `repeat()`, etc.)
* Object manipulation (`assign()`, `merge()`, etc.)

**Special JS feature or syntax**

The benchmark uses arrow functions, which are a concise way to define small anonymous functions in JavaScript. They were introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6) and provide several benefits, including:

* Simplified code with fewer keywords
* Improved readability due to no `function` keyword
* Automatic scope binding for the function body

However, arrow functions are not supported in older browsers like Internet Explorer.

**Other alternatives**

If you prefer to use a different utility library or implementation, other options include:

* **Underscore.js**: Another popular JavaScript utility library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.
* **PureScript**: A functional programming language and its compiler that can be used for building performance-critical applications.
* **NativeArray methods**: Depending on the specific use case, native methods like `filter()` and `map()` might not offer significant benefits over using a library like Lodash. However, they may provide better support for certain edge cases or browsers.

Overall, the choice between the native JavaScript approach and a utility library like Lodash depends on your project's requirements, performance needs, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Map: Lodash vs Native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native filter-map vs Lodash filter-map

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native filter-map

Lodash filter-map

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):