Benchmark: Ramda vs vanilla JS

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.28.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,97]

Tests:

Vanilla JS
primes.includes(43)
Ramda
R.includes(43,primes)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla JS
Ramda

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two JavaScript libraries: Ramda and vanilla (native) JavaScript, in terms of including an element in an array using `includes()`.

The benchmark definition is represented by a JSON object with three parts:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This section contains code that needs to be executed before running the benchmark. In this case, it loads the Ramda library (`var primes = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,97]`) and defines a constant `primes`.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: This section contains code that needs to be executed in the browser's HTML environment before running the benchmark. In this case, it loads the Ramda library from an external CDN (`<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.28.0/ramda.min.js"></script>`).
3. **Benchmark Definition**: This section defines the actual benchmark to be executed. It contains two test cases:

- **Vanilla JS**: This test case uses native JavaScript's `includes()` method to check if an element (43) is present in the `primes` array.
   - **Ramda**: This test case uses Ramda's `R.includes()` function to check if an element (43) is present in the `primes` array.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares two main options:

1. **Vanilla JavaScript**: Using native JavaScript's built-in methods and functions, such as `includes()`.
2. **Ramda**: Using Ramda, a functional programming library that provides a set of higher-order functions to manipulate arrays and other data structures.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Vanilla JavaScript:**

Pros:

* Fast execution: Native JavaScript methods are typically optimized for performance.
* Low overhead: No additional libraries or dependencies need to be loaded.

Cons:

* Limited functionality: `includes()` is a simple method, but it may not provide all the features you need.
* Less readable code: Without external libraries like Ramda, code might look more verbose and less expressive.

**Ramda:**

Pros:

* Higher-order functions: Ramda provides a rich set of functions for array manipulation, making your code more concise and readable.
* Functional programming paradigm: Ramda encourages a declarative programming style, which can lead to better maintainability and scalability.

Cons:

* Additional library overhead: Loading an external library like Ramda adds extra weight and dependencies.
* Steeper learning curve: Familiarity with functional programming concepts is required.

**Other Considerations**

* **Device Platform**: The benchmark was run on a desktop Linux platform, which might not be representative of other platforms (e.g., mobile devices).
* **Browser Version**: Chrome 104 was used as the test browser, but this might affect the results due to variations in JavaScript engine optimizations or rendering.
* **JavaScript Engine Optimizations**: Modern JavaScript engines often perform various optimizations, such as Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation or caching, which can impact benchmark results.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

No special JavaScript features or syntax were mentioned in this explanation.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.5112.112 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 104 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Vanilla JS	32841400.0 Ops/sec
Ramda	8912176.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Ramda vs vanilla JS (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Vanilla JS vs Ramda

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla JS

Ramda

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):