Benchmark: Lodash.js vs Native

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var max1 = 100000; // 100,000 (100 Thousand)
var max2 = 10000000; // 10,000,000 (10 Million)
var max3 = 100000000; // 100,000,000 (100 Million)

var arr1 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max1; i++) { arr1.push(i); }

var arr2 = [];
for (var i = 0; i <= max2; i++) { arr2.push(i); }

var arr3 = [];
//for (var i = 0; i <= max3; i++) { arr3.push(i); }

Tests:

Native
arr2.forEach(function (element, index) { element = element*2; });
Lodash.js filter
_.each(arr2, function (element, index) { element = element*2; });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash.js filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Measuring JavaScript performance is crucial for optimizing code quality and user experience.

**Benchmark Definition JSON Explanation**

The provided benchmark definition represents a comparison between two approaches:

1. **Lodash.js vs Native**: This test compares the performance of using Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library, versus writing native JavaScript code to perform a specific task.
2. **`.forEach()` vs `_.each()`**: This test measures the performance difference between using the built-in `.forEach()` method (native) and the `_each()` function from Lodash.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares:

* **Native vs Lodash.js**: These two approaches differ in how they process data. Native code uses explicit loops, while Lodash provides a higher-level abstraction.
* **`.forEach()` vs `_.each()`**: Within the Lodash approach, these two functions are compared to determine which one performs better.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native vs Lodash.js:**

Pros:

* Native code is often more straightforward and easier to understand for developers familiar with the language.
* Can be optimized for performance using native compiler optimizations or other techniques specific to the target platform.

Cons:

* Requires manual loop control, which can lead to inefficiencies if not implemented correctly.
* Platform dependencies might affect performance (e.g., different JavaScript engines).

Lodash.js Pros:

* Provides a convenient, high-level abstraction, making code more readable and maintainable.
* Can simplify complex operations by providing built-in functions.

Cons:

* Adds overhead due to the additional layer of abstraction and function call.
* Might not optimize as well as native code for specific use cases.

**.forEach() vs _.each():**

Pros (Native):

* Built-in method, so no additional overhead beyond JavaScript engine optimization.
* Typically optimized by the JavaScript engine itself.

Cons:

* May have limitations in terms of customization or performance control compared to Lodash's function.

Lodash Pros (_each()):

* Customizable and extensible through plugin architecture.
* Can be more efficient for certain use cases, like handling asynchronous data.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides an extensive set of functions for common tasks such as array manipulation, functional programming, and more. Its `_each()` function is used here to illustrate how Lodash can improve code readability while providing some performance overhead.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

The benchmark does not specifically utilize any advanced JavaScript features like async/await, promises, or modern syntax (e.g., arrow functions). However, it does use a slightly older version of Lodash (`@4.17.4`) which might have different optimizations compared to newer versions.

**Alternatives**

For measuring JavaScript performance:

1. **BenchmarkDotNet**: A popular benchmarking library specifically designed for JavaScript.
2. **V8 Profiler**: A built-in tool in Node.js and Chrome DevTools that provides detailed profiling information.
3. **Chrome DevTools**: Offers various tools, including the Heap Profiler, Network Monitor, and Timeline Analyzer.

For optimizing native code:

1. **Code Analysis Tools**: Tools like UglifyJS or Dead Code Elimination can help identify performance-critical areas of the codebase.
2. **Optimization Techniques**: Use techniques such as caching, memoization, and parallel processing to improve performance.
3. **Platform-Specific Optimizations**: Leverage compiler optimizations specific to your target platform (e.g., WebAssembly for WebAssembly-enabled browsers).

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 hours ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 133 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	31.1 Ops/sec
Lodash.js filter	33.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash.js vs Native (version: 5)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash.js filter

Created: 7 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash.js filter

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):