Benchmark: Lodash some vs JS some 1

HTML Preparation code:

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

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

Tests:

Lodash

function getRandomString(length) {
  const charset = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
  let result = "";
  for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
    const randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * charset.length);
    result += charset.charAt(randomIndex);
  }
  return result;
}

function getRandomBoolean() {
  return Math.random() < 0.5; // Generates true or false with roughly equal probability
}

function generateArrayOfJSONObjects(length) {
  const jsonArray = [];
  for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
    const jsonObject = {
      name: getRandomString(10), // Change 10 to the desired length of the random string
      value: getRandomBoolean(),
    };
    jsonArray.push(jsonObject);
  }
  return jsonArray;
}

const array = generateArrayOfJSONObjects(10);
const found = _.some(array, s => s.value);

 
function getRandomString(length) {  const charset = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";  let result = "";  for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {    const randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * charset.length);    result += charset.charAt(randomIndex);  }  return result;}​function getRandomBoolean() {  return Math.random() < 0.5; // Generates true or false with roughly equal probability}​function generateArrayOfJSONObjects(length) {  const jsonArray = [];  for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {    const jsonObject = {      name: getRandomString(10), // Change 10 to the desired length of the random string      value: getRandomBoolean(),    };    jsonArray.push(jsonObject);  }  return jsonArray;}​const array = generateArrayOfJSONObjects(10);const found = _.some(array, s => s.value);

JS some

function getRandomString(length) {
  const charset = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";
  let result = "";
  for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
    const randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * charset.length);
    result += charset.charAt(randomIndex);
  }
  return result;
}

function getRandomBoolean() {
  return Math.random() < 0.5; // Generates true or false with roughly equal probability
}

function generateArrayOfJSONObjects(length) {
  const jsonArray = [];
  for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {
    const jsonObject = {
      name: getRandomString(10), // Change 10 to the desired length of the random string
      value: getRandomBoolean(),
    };
    jsonArray.push(jsonObject);
  }
  return jsonArray;
}

const array = generateArrayOfJSONObjects(10);
const found = array.some(s => s === 'oranges');

 
function getRandomString(length) {  const charset = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz";  let result = "";  for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {    const randomIndex = Math.floor(Math.random() * charset.length);    result += charset.charAt(randomIndex);  }  return result;}​function getRandomBoolean() {  return Math.random() < 0.5; // Generates true or false with roughly equal probability}​function generateArrayOfJSONObjects(length) {  const jsonArray = [];  for (let i = 0; i < length; i++) {    const jsonObject = {      name: getRandomString(10), // Change 10 to the desired length of the random string      value: getRandomBoolean(),    };    jsonArray.push(jsonObject);  }  return jsonArray;}​const array = generateArrayOfJSONObjects(10);const found = array.some(s => s === 'oranges');

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Experimental features:

Memory measurements supported only in Chrome.
For precise memory measurements Chrome must be launched with --enable-precise-memory-info flag.
More information: Monitoring JavaScript Memory

Test case name	Result
Lodash
JS some

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/117.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 117 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	950575.4 Ops/sec
JS some	926079.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

I'll break down the provided benchmark test and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

Benchmark Test Overview

The test is comparing two approaches to check if an array contains a certain value:

Using Lodash's some() function
Directly using the some() method on the JavaScript array

Lodash vs JS some

In both cases, the same functions are used to generate random arrays of JSON objects and a specific value ('oranges' in this case). The difference lies in the way the some() method is called:

Lodash's some(): This function is imported from an external library (Lodash) and uses its implementation. When using Lodash, you need to include the library in your project.
JS some: This approach directly calls the some() method on the JavaScript array, without importing any external libraries.

Pros and Cons of each approach

Lodash's `some()`

Pros:

Convenience: Using a well-tested and widely used library like Lodash can simplify code and reduce the chance of errors.
Performance: Lodash is optimized for performance and may provide better results in certain scenarios.

Cons:

Overhead: Including an external library can add unnecessary overhead to your project, especially if you're already using a larger bundle (e.g., React or Angular).
Dependence on third-party code: Your test becomes dependent on the Lodash library being available and up-to-date.

JS some

Pros:

Lightweight: By not importing an external library, your test is more lightweight and self-contained.
Less dependence on third-party code: You're less likely to encounter issues with versioning or availability of the library.

Cons:

More complex implementation: Implementing a custom some() method requires additional logic and may be more prone to errors.

Other considerations

If you plan to use this benchmark test in production, using Lodash might provide better performance and maintainability benefits.
However, if you're looking for a lightweight solution or want to avoid the overhead of an external library, JS some is a viable alternative.

Keep in mind that both approaches will produce similar results, but the Lodash version might have a slight edge due to its optimized implementation.

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the provided benchmark test and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Test Overview**

The test is comparing two approaches to check if an array contains a certain value:

1. Using Lodash's `some()` function
2. Directly using the `some()` method on the JavaScript array

**Lodash vs JS some**

In both cases, the same functions are used to generate random arrays of JSON objects and a specific value (`'oranges'` in this case). The difference lies in the way the `some()` method is called:

* Lodash's `some()`: This function is imported from an external library (Lodash) and uses its implementation. When using Lodash, you need to include the library in your project.
* JS some: This approach directly calls the `some()` method on the JavaScript array, without importing any external libraries.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

### Lodash's `some()`

Pros:

1. **Convenience**: Using a well-tested and widely used library like Lodash can simplify code and reduce the chance of errors.
2. **Performance**: Lodash is optimized for performance and may provide better results in certain scenarios.

Cons:

1. **Overhead**: Including an external library can add unnecessary overhead to your project, especially if you're already using a larger bundle (e.g., React or Angular).
2. **Dependence on third-party code**: Your test becomes dependent on the Lodash library being available and up-to-date.

### JS some

Pros:

1. **Lightweight**: By not importing an external library, your test is more lightweight and self-contained.
2. **Less dependence on third-party code**: You're less likely to encounter issues with versioning or availability of the library.

Cons:

1. **More complex implementation**: Implementing a custom `some()` method requires additional logic and may be more prone to errors.

**Other considerations**

* If you plan to use this benchmark test in production, using Lodash might provide better performance and maintainability benefits.
* However, if you're looking for a lightweight solution or want to avoid the overhead of an external library, JS some is a viable alternative.

Keep in mind that both approaches will produce similar results, but the Lodash version might have a slight edge due to its optimized implementation.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash some vs JS some 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs JS some

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

JS some

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Lodash's `some()`

JS some

Lodash some vs JS some 1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs JS some

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

JS some

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

Lodash's some()

JS some

Lodash's `some()`