Benchmark: lodash isEmpty vs native for empty strings

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.ttext = "a string";

Tests:

_.isEmpty
if (!_.isEmpty(window.ttext));
native
if (window.ttext);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.isEmpty
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/128.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 128 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.isEmpty	6970608.0 Ops/sec
native	11925667.0 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 tested?**

The provided benchmark compares two approaches to check if a string is empty: using Lodash's `isEmpty` function and a native JavaScript approach.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Lodash's `isEmpty` function**: This function takes an object or value as input and returns a boolean indicating whether the value is empty.
2. **Native JavaScript approach**: This approach uses the strict equality operator (`===`) to check if the string is equal to its empty equivalent (`""`).

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash's `isEmpty` function**

Pros:

* Portable: The function works on any platform, as it only depends on JavaScript's built-in functionality.
* Easy to use: The function takes an object or value as input, making it convenient for developers who are already familiar with Lodash.

Cons:

* Performance overhead: Using a library like Lodash may introduce additional overhead due to the need to load and initialize the library.
* Additional dependency: Developers must include the Lodash library in their project to use this function.

**Native JavaScript approach**

Pros:

* Lightweight: This approach does not require any additional dependencies or libraries, making it a lightweight option.
* Fast execution: The native JavaScript approach is likely to be faster since it only uses basic JavaScript functionality.

Cons:

* Platform-specific: The `===` operator may behave differently on certain platforms, which could affect the accuracy of the results.

**Library (Lodash)**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this case, the `isEmpty` function is used to check if an object or value is empty.

**Special JS feature (ES6 template literals)**

The benchmark uses ES6 template literals (`window.ttext = "a string";`) to set a string variable. This feature allows for more concise and readable code when working with strings.

**Other alternatives**

If you prefer not to use Lodash, you can implement the `isEmpty` function using JavaScript's built-in functions, such as:

```javascript
function isEmpty(obj) {
  return Object.keys(obj).length === 0;
}
```

Alternatively, you could use other libraries like Underscore.js or Moment.js to perform similar functionality.

**Benchmark preparation code**

The benchmark preparation code sets a string variable `window.ttext` and includes the Lodash library from a CDN in the HTML file. This ensures that both test cases have access to the same environment and can accurately compare the performance of their respective implementations.

Related benchmarks:

lodash isEmpty vs native for empty strings (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.isEmpty vs native

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

native

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):