Benchmark: lo vs js - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var array = [...Array(1000).keys()];

Tests:

js
const a = array.slice(0, 500)
lo
const a = _.take(array, 500)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
js
lo

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmarking setup and explain what's being tested, compared, and evaluated.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches: JavaScript (JS) and Lodash (.lo), which is a popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript. The benchmark tests how long it takes to slice an array with a specific length using each approach.

**Script Preparation Code**

Before running the benchmark, the script preparation code creates an array of 1000 elements, using the `Array.from()` method and the spread operator (`...`):
```javascript
var array = [...Array(1000).keys()];
```
This line creates an array with 1000 elements, from 0 to 999.

**Html Preparation Code**

The HTML preparation code includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library (version 4.17.5) from a CDN:
```html
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
```
This line ensures that the Lodash library is available for use in the benchmark.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **JS**: This test case uses JavaScript's built-in array slicing method to slice an array with 500 elements:
```javascript
const a = array.slice(0, 500);
```
2. **LO**: This test case uses Lodash's `take` function from the loaded library to achieve the same result:
```javascript
const a = _.take(array, 500);
```
**Comparison**

The benchmark compares the execution times of these two approaches:

* **Pros and Cons:**
	+ **JavaScript (JS)**:
		- Pros: Fast, lightweight, and widely supported.
		- Cons: Can be slower for large arrays or complex operations due to the overhead of JavaScript's engine.
	+ **Lodash (.lo)**:
		- Pros: Provides a concise and expressive API for common functional programming tasks, reducing code duplication and making it easier to maintain.
		- Cons: Adds an external dependency (the Lodash library), which may not be necessary for smaller projects.

**Special Considerations**

In this benchmark, the use of Lodash's `take` function allows for a concise and readable implementation. However, if the user prefers JavaScript's native array methods, they can choose to implement it manually instead:
```javascript
const a = array.slice(0, 500);
```
**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for achieving array slicing or similar operations in JavaScript include:

* Using `Array.prototype.slice()` method with a callback function (not shown in the benchmark).
* Utilizing libraries like Ramda or John Resig's Ramda.js, which provide an alternative to Lodash.
* Implementing custom solutions using loops or recursion.

In summary, this benchmark measures the performance of two approaches: JavaScript's built-in array slicing method and Lodash's `take` function. The JavaScript approach is lightweight but may be slower for large arrays, while the Lodash approach provides a concise API at the cost of an external dependency.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:105.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/105.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 105 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
js	125028.4 Ops/sec
lo	80329.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lo vs js (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: js vs lo

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

js

lo

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):