Benchmark: Lodash has vs Typescript in

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var test = {
  'a': 'ok',
  'b': 'maybe'
}

Tests:

has
_.has(test, 'a')
in
'a' in test

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
has
in

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
has	6858069.0 Ops/sec
in	15020577.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmarking test on MeasureThat.net. The test compares two approaches: using the `_.has` function from Lodash and using the `in` operator in JavaScript.

**What is being tested?**

In this case, we're testing two specific use cases:

1. Checking if a property exists within an object using `_.has`.
2. Using the `in` operator to check if a property exists within an object.

The test creates a sample object `test` with properties `'a'` and `'b'`, and then uses these approaches to check if `'a'` is present in the object.

**Comparison of Options**

Here's a brief overview of the options being compared:

* **Lodash _.has**: This function takes two arguments: the object to search (`test`) and the property name to look for (`'a'`). It returns `true` if the property exists, and `false` otherwise.
* **JavaScript `in` operator**: The `in` operator is used with the object literal syntax (e.g., `"key" in obj`). In this case, it's used as `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(test, 'a')`, which checks if `'a'` is a property of `test`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash _.has**: Pros:
	+ More concise and readable code.
	+ Less likely to introduce unnecessary operations (e.g., string concatenation).
* Cons:
	+ Requires Lodash to be included in the test environment.
	+ May have a slight performance overhead due to the need for function call overhead.
* **JavaScript `in` operator**: Pros:
	+ Built-in and widely supported, making it more likely to be executed by all browsers.
	+ Less overhead compared to using a function like `_.has`.
* Cons:
	+ Requires explicit usage of `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()`, which can make the code slightly less readable.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object iteration, and more. In this case, `_.has` is used to simplify the comparison between the two approaches.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for checking if a property exists within an object, some other options include:

* Using `Object.keys()` to get an array of the object's keys and then checking if `'a'` is present.
* Implementing your own `hasOwnProperty()`-style function using `Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call()`.
* Using a library like jQuery (for modern browsers) or a polyfill for older browsers.

These alternatives may have varying trade-offs in terms of performance, readability, and compatibility.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash has vs Typescript in (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: has vs in

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

has

in

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):