Benchmark: Lodash Chain (with &&) vs Native (with &&) vs Native (without &&) vs Flow

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var fp = _.noConflict();

var data = Array(10000000).fill({ a: 'a', b: 1 });

Tests:

Chain
_.chain(data).filter(f => f.a === 'a' && f.b === 1 && f.b + 1 === 2).map(f => f.a).filter(f => f === 'a').value()
Native (with &&)
data.filter(f => f.a === 'a' && f.b === 1 && f.b + 1 === 2).map(f => f.a).filter(f => f === 'a')
Native (without &&)
data.filter(f => f.a === 'a').filter(f => f.b === 1).filter(f => f.b + 1 === 2).map(f => f.a).filter(f => f === 'a')
Flow
fp.flow( fp.filter(f => f.a === 'a'), fp.filter(f => f.b === 1), fp.filter(f => f.b + 1 === 2), fp.map(f => f.a), fp.filter(f => f === 'a') )(data)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Chain
Native (with &&)
Native (without &&)
Flow

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares four approaches to filter and transform an array:

1. Lodash Chain (with &&)
2. Native (with &&)
3. Native (without &&)
4. Flow

**Options Compared**

Each test case uses a different approach to achieve the same result, which is to filter and map an array of objects.

* **Lodash Chain (with &&)**: Uses the `_.chain()` method from Lodash to create a pipelined function chain that performs the filtering and mapping operations. The `&&` operator is used to short-circuit the evaluation of the expressions.
* **Native (with &&)**: Uses the native JavaScript `filter()` and `map()` methods, taking advantage of the implicit short-circuiting behavior of the `&&` operator in conditional statements.
* **Native (without &&)**: Uses the same `filter()` and `map()` methods as above but without the `&&` operator.
* **Flow**: Utilizes the Flow programming language's `filter()`, `map()`, and `filter()` functions to achieve the same result. The `&&` operator is used in a different context, as part of a conditional expression.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some observations about each approach:

* **Lodash Chain (with &&)**:
	+ Pros: Encapsulates the filtering and mapping operations within a single, reusable function, which can be beneficial for code readability and maintainability.
	+ Cons: Requires Lodash to be loaded as an external library, adding overhead and potential conflicts with other libraries.
* **Native (with &&)**:
	+ Pros: Leverages native JavaScript functionality, eliminating the need for external libraries. The implicit short-circuiting behavior of `&&` also reduces computation overhead.
	+ Cons: May require additional effort to ensure correct usage of the `&&` operator in conditional statements.
* **Native (without &&)**:
	+ Pros: Simplifies the code and avoids potential conflicts with other libraries, but may result in slightly less efficient execution due to the explicit use of `filter()` and `map()`.
	+ Cons: Requires more boilerplate code to achieve the same result as the `with &&` approach.
* **Flow**:
	+ Pros: Provides a concise and expressive way to perform filtering and mapping operations, leveraging Flow's type system for safety guarantees.
	+ Cons: Requires knowledge of the Flow programming language and its specific syntax.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark also highlights the importance of:

* **Device Platform**: The test results are reported for a Chrome Mobile device running Android 10. This highlights the potential differences in performance between different devices and platforms.
* **Browser**: Although the browser is specified, it's essential to note that mobile browsers can exhibit different behavior compared to desktop browsers due to factors like memory constraints, rendering engines, and platform-specific optimizations.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to achieve similar results might include:

* Using a library like `lodash-es` or `ramda` for functional programming and filtering/mapping operations.
* Utilizing modern JavaScript features like `Array.prototype.filter()` and `Array.prototype.map()` with more advanced techniques, such as using `forEach()` or `reduce()`.
* Leveraging specialized libraries or frameworks for filtering and mapping operations, such as Angular's `filter()` and `map()` methods.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might have their own trade-offs regarding performance, code readability, maintainability, and compatibility.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 10; ELE-L29) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/105.0.0.0 Mobile Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome Mobile 105 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Chain	0.5 Ops/sec
Native (with &&)	0.4 Ops/sec
Native (without &&)	0.2 Ops/sec
Flow	0.3 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash Chain (with &&) vs Native (with &&) vs Native (without &&) vs Flow (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Chain vs Native (with &&) vs Native (without &&) vs Flow

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Chain

Native (with &&)

Native (without &&)

Flow

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):