Benchmark: lodash fp vs pure js v2

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash-fp/0.10.4/lodash-fp.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30];

function* map(f, xs) {
  for (const x of xs) {
    yield f(x);
  }
}

function* filter(f, xs) {
  for (const x of xs) {
    if (f(x)) {
      yield(x);
    }
  }
}

function* filterMap(f, g, xs) {
  for (const x of xs) {
    if (f(x)) {
      yield g(x);
    }
  }
}

Tests:

pure js
var pure = numbers.filter(num => num % 2 === 0).map(num=> ({ result: num }));
lodash fp
_.flow(_.map(num => ({ result: num })), _.filter(num => num % 2 === 0))(numbers);
generator, filter + map
var pure = [...filter(num => num % 2 === 0, map(num => ({ result: num }), numbers))];
generator, filterMap
var pure = [...filterMap(num => num % 2 === 0, num => ({ result: num }), numbers)];
pure js, reversed
var pure = numbers.map(num=> ({ result: num })).filter(({result}) => result % 2 === 0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
pure js
lodash fp
generator, filter + map
generator, filterMap
pure js, reversed

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/95.0.4638.54 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 95 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
pure js	4734605.0 Ops/sec
lodash fp	128519.8 Ops/sec
generator, filter + map	135683.7 Ops/sec
generator, filterMap	600702.4 Ops/sec
pure js, reversed	3111443.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance of different ways to filter and map an array of numbers in pure JavaScript, using both generator functions and the Lodash library with its `fp` (functional programming) version. The tests compare the execution speed of these approaches:

1. Pure JavaScript: using built-in Array methods (`filter`, `map`) without any additional libraries.
2. Lodash with `fp`: leveraging the Lodash library's functional programming utilities to simplify and optimize the code.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares four different implementations:

1. **Pure JavaScript**: Using only native JavaScript functions like `Array.prototype.filter()` and `Array.prototype.map()`.
2. **Generator, filter + map**: A custom implementation that uses generator functions (`map` and `filter`) to process the array, then flattens the result using another `filter` function.
3. **Generator, filterMap**: Similar to the previous one, but uses a single `filterMap` function to achieve the same result.
4. **Lodash fp**: Using Lodash's `fp` library to simplify and optimize the code for functional programming.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

Here are some general pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Pure JavaScript**:
	* Pros: Easy to understand, no additional dependencies required.
	* Cons: May be less efficient due to slower native function calls.
2. **Generator, filter + map**, **Generator, filterMap**:
	* Pros: Can be more efficient than pure JavaScript due to generator functions' ability to yield values one at a time.
	* Cons: Require more complex code and may be harder to read for non-experts.
3. **Lodash fp**:
	* Pros: Provides an optimized, functional programming-friendly implementation that can lead to better performance.
	* Cons: Requires Lodash library, which adds dependency.

**Other considerations**

When writing benchmarks like this one, it's essential to consider factors such as:

* Input data size and distribution (e.g., random vs. sequential).
* System configuration (e.g., CPU architecture, available memory).
* Browser or runtime environment specifics (e.g., caching, JIT compilation).

**Library and its purpose**

In this benchmark, the Lodash library is used for its `fp` utility functions, which provide a more functional programming-friendly API for working with arrays. The `fp` version of these functions is optimized for performance.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark, such as async/await, Promises, or ES6+ classes. However, the use of generator functions (`map`, `filter`) does demonstrate a more functional programming-oriented approach to array processing.

Related benchmarks:

lodash fp vs pure js v2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: pure js vs lodash fp vs generator, filter + map vs generator, filterMap vs pure js, reversed

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

pure js

lodash fp

generator, filter + map

generator, filterMap

pure js, reversed

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):