Benchmark: lodash isPlainobject vs valina JS

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var x = {'this': 'is', 'a': 'test', 'object': 52 }

Tests:

lodash
var y = _.isPlainObject(x)
typeof
var y = (typeof(x) === 'object' && !Array.isArray(x) && x !== null)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
typeof

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 on MeasureThat.net!

The provided JSON represents two test cases: `lodash` and `typeof`. We'll break down what each option is tested, their pros and cons, and discuss any relevant libraries or special JS features.

**Test Case 1: `lodash`**

* **Benchmark Definition**: `var y = _.isPlainObject(x)`
	+ This line tests the performance of the `_isPlainObject` function from Lodash (a popular JavaScript utility library).
	+ The purpose of this function is to check if an object is plain, meaning it doesn't have any prototype chains or other complex relationships.
* **Pros and Cons**: 
	+ Pros: `_.isPlainObject` can be more concise and readable than writing your own implementation. Lodash's implementation is likely optimized for performance.
	+ Cons: Using a third-party library like Lodash may introduce additional overhead due to loading the library and parsing its code. Additionally, if the library isn't available or loaded correctly, this test may fail.
* **Alternative Implementation**: You could implement your own `isPlainObject` function using the following logic:
```javascript
function isPlainObject(obj) {
  return obj === Object(obj) && obj.constructor === Function;
}
```
However, this implementation is likely less readable and may not be as performant as Lodash's version.

**Test Case 2: `typeof`**

* **Benchmark Definition**: `var y = (typeof(x) === 'object' && !Array.isArray(x) && x !== null)`
	+ This line tests the performance of using the `typeof` operator to check if an object is plain.
	+ The purpose of this test is to evaluate the efficiency of using `typeof` in a conditional statement, particularly when checking for object types.
* **Pros and Cons**: 
	+ Pros: Using `typeof` is simple and readable. It's also a native JavaScript function, so it won't introduce additional overhead due to loading external libraries.
	+ Cons: This approach may be slower than using Lodash's `isPlainObject` because `typeof` has to look up the type of an object in the `Object.prototype.toString()` method, which can be slower for large objects or those with complex constructors.
* **Alternative Implementation**: You could also use a more explicit check:
```javascript
function isPlainObject(obj) {
  return Object.getPrototypeOf(obj) === null;
}
```
However, this implementation assumes that an object's prototype chain has not been manipulated, which might not always be the case.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash (formerly underscore.js) is a popular JavaScript utility library developed by Isaac Schlueter. It provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. In this benchmark, `_.isPlainObject` is used to check if an object is plain.

**Special JS Feature: None**

There are no special JS features or syntaxes being used in these tests. The code snippets provided use standard JavaScript syntax.

Now that we've covered the test cases, let's look at what else MeasureThat.net offers:

Other Alternatives:

1. **Benchmarking frameworks**: There are several benchmarking frameworks available for JavaScript, such as ` Benchmark.js` or `JSPerf`. These frameworks allow you to write and run benchmarks using a more structured approach.
2. **Other microbenchmark libraries**: Libraries like `fast-math` or `js-benchmark` provide additional features and options for writing and running microbenchmarks.
3. **WebAssembly (WASM) benchmarks**: If you're interested in benchmarking performance on WASM, MeasureThat.net also provides a way to create and run tests using WebAssembly.

Keep in mind that the choice of benchmarking framework or library ultimately depends on your specific use case, requirements, and preferences.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/114.0.0.0 Whale/3.21.192.18 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 114 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	4225579.0 Ops/sec
typeof	5493347.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodash isPlainobject vs valina JS (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs typeof

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

typeof

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):