Benchmark: native find() vs lodash _.find() vs native some()

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.11/lodash.core.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var users = [
  { 'user': 'joey',  'age': 32 },
  { 'user': 'ross',    'age': 41 },
  { 'user': 'chandler', 'age': 39 }
]

Tests:

array find()
// Native !!users.find(u => u.age < 40)
_.find()
_.find(users, (u) => u.age < 40)
_.some()
// Native users.some(u => u.age < 40)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array find()
_.find()
_.some()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript benchmarking test on MeasureThat.net, comparing the performance of native JavaScript functions (`Array.prototype.find()` and `Array.prototype.some()`) against those from the popular utility library Lodash (`_.find()` and `_some()`).

**Benchmarked Functions**

1. **Native `Array.prototype.find()`**: This function searches for the first element in an array that satisfies a specified condition.
2. **Lodash _.find()**: This is a higher-order function that takes two arguments: an array and a callback function. It returns the first element of the array that matches the condition provided by the callback.
3. **Native `Array.prototype.some()`**: This function checks if at least one element in an array satisfies a specified condition.
4. **Lodash _.some()**: Similar to Lodash's `_find()`, but instead of returning a single value, it returns a boolean indicating whether any element matches the condition.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares these four functions:

* Native JavaScript (`Array.prototype.find()` and `Array.prototype.some()`)
* Lodash (`_.find()` and `_some()`)

**Pros and Cons**

**Native JavaScript Functions**

Pros:

* Typically faster since they are implemented in native code, optimized for performance.
* Less memory usage compared to Lodash implementations.

Cons:

* Less readable due to lack of clear variable names and callback function complexity.
* May not be compatible with older browsers or environments that don't support modern JavaScript features.

**Lodash Functions**

Pros:

* More readable due to the use of named functions and clear variable names.
* Compatible with a wider range of browsers and environments, as Lodash provides polyfills for legacy JavaScript features.

Cons:

* Typically slower since they involve function call overhead and additional memory usage.
* May not be optimized for performance in all scenarios.

**Other Considerations**

* The benchmark uses an array of objects with nested properties to test the functions' ability to traverse complex data structures.
* The Lodash implementation uses a closure-based approach, while native JavaScript implementations rely on the Array.prototype methods directly.

**Library Overview (Lodash)**

Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functional programming helpers for JavaScript. Its `_find()` and `_some()` functions are designed to simplify common data manipulation tasks, making code more readable and maintainable.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative JavaScript libraries or native implementations, consider:

* Other utility libraries like Moment.js for date manipulation or Knex.js for database interactions.
* Native JavaScript alternatives to Lodash functions, such as `Array.prototype.filter()` and `Array.prototype.some()` (although these may not be as concise or readable).
* Browser-specific polyfills or transpilers to target older environments.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the benchmark's context and the trade-offs between native JavaScript functions and Lodash implementations!

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 23 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array find()	16571206.0 Ops/sec
_.find()	5587680.5 Ops/sec
_.some()	16586684.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

native find() vs lodash _.find() vs native some() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array find() vs _.find() vs _.some()

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array find()

_.find()

_.some()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):