Benchmark: _.isEmpty vs Array.length for performance

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

window.arr = ["hello", "world"];

Tests:

_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty(window.arr)
_.isEmpty(window.arr);
window.arr.length === 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty(window.arr);

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/119.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 119 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.isEmpty	3745931.2 Ops/sec
_.isEmpty(window.arr);	6036969.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided JSON benchmark definition and explain what's being tested.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to check if an array is empty: using the `_.isEmpty` function from Lodash (a popular utility library) and checking the length of the array directly (`window.arr.length === 0`). We'll break down each test case, explore the pros and cons of these approaches, and discuss other alternatives.

**Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. **_.isEmpty(window.arr)**

This test case uses the `_.isEmpty` function from Lodash to check if the `window.arr` array is empty. This approach relies on the library's implementation, which likely checks the length of the array or uses a more efficient algorithm.

Pros:

* Portable and consistent across different browsers and platforms
* Reduces boilerplate code and makes the code more readable

Cons:

* Requires Lodash to be loaded (additional dependency)
* May not perform well in certain edge cases due to library implementation

2. **window.arr.length === 0**

This test case checks if the `window.arr` array is empty by comparing its length to 0. This approach is a simple, straightforward way to check for emptiness.

Pros:

* Lightweight and doesn't require any additional libraries
* Fast and efficient (no library overhead)

Cons:

* May not work as expected in certain edge cases (e.g., NaN values or non-numeric lengths)
* Can be less readable due to the direct comparison

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for working with arrays, objects, strings, and more. The `_.isEmpty` function is just one example of this.

Pros:

* Convenient and easy-to-use API
* Extensive documentation and community support

Cons:

* Additional dependency (requires loading Lodash)
* May not perform optimally in certain edge cases due to library implementation

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

There are no specific JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you prefer not to use an external library like Lodash, you could also implement your own empty array check using a simple algorithm:

```javascript
function isEmpty(arr) {
  return arr.length === 0;
}
```

Alternatively, you could use other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality.

In conclusion, the benchmark provides a useful comparison between two approaches to check if an array is empty: using Lodash's `_.isEmpty` function and checking the length of the array directly. While both approaches have their pros and cons, the choice ultimately depends on your specific needs, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

_.isEmpty vs Array.length for performance (version: 0)

_.isEmpty vs Array.length for performance

Comparing performance of: _.isEmpty vs _.isEmpty(window.arr);

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

_.isEmpty(window.arr);

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):