Benchmark: Lodash IsEmpty for objects

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {};

Tests:

_.isEmpty
var a = _.isEmpty(obj)
forEach
for (var x in obj) { return false; } return true;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.isEmpty
forEach

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/98.0.4758.102 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 98 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.isEmpty	4184184.0 Ops/sec
forEach	14532164.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark is testing two different approaches to check if an object is empty: using the `_.isEmpty` function from the Lodash library, and using a traditional `for...in` loop with early returns.

**Options compared:**

1. **Lodash's _.isEmpty**: This method takes an object as input and returns a boolean indicating whether the object is empty.
2. **Traditional for...in loop**: This approach uses a loop to iterate over the properties of the object using `for...in`. If any property exists, the loop continues; otherwise, it breaks out and returns false.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Lodash's _.isEmpty**:
	* Pros:
		+ Concise and readable code.
		+ No need to worry about null or undefined objects.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires Lodash library to be included in the test environment.
		+ May have a slight performance overhead due to function call.
2. **Traditional for...in loop**:
	* Pros:
		+ Native JavaScript, no additional library required.
		+ Can handle null or undefined objects correctly.
	* Cons:
		+ More verbose code compared to Lodash's _.isEmpty.
		+ Requires explicit handling of early returns.

**Library usage:**

The `lodash` library is used in the benchmark to provide the `_.isEmpty` function. The library is included via a CDN link (`https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js`) to make it easily accessible during testing.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark. It's straightforward JavaScript code that leverages the Lodash library and traditional `for...in` loop approaches.

**Other alternatives:**

In addition to Lodash's _.isEmpty, other alternatives for checking if an object is empty include:

1. **Object.keys() + length check**: Use `Object.keys()` to get an array of object properties and then check its length using the `length` property.
2. **For...of loop with hasOwnProperty()**: Use a `for...of` loop to iterate over the object's own enumerable properties and use `hasOwnProperty()` to skip inherited properties.
3. **Object.entries() + filter()**: Use `Object.entries()` to get an array of key-value pairs and then use the `filter()` method to check if any pair exists.

These alternatives can be used in place of Lodash's _.isEmpty or traditional for...in loop approaches, but they may require more code and might have slightly different performance characteristics.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash IsEmpty for objects (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.isEmpty vs forEach

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

forEach

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):