Benchmark: Last element (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [...Array(20)].map((v, idx) => idx);

Tests:

Ramda
R.last(data)
Array (native)
data.at(-1)
Lodash
_.last(data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
Array (native)
Lodash

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 break down the provided benchmark JSON and explanations.

**Benchmark Definition**

The test aims to measure the performance difference between accessing the last element of an array using three different methods:

1. Native JavaScript: `data.at(-1)`
2. Ramda library: `R.last(data)`
3. Lodash library: `_.last(data)`

These methods are compared to determine which is the fastest.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

* Accessing the last element of an array using a native JavaScript method (`data.at(-1)`).
* Using the Ramda library's `R.last` function to access the last element of an array.
* Using the Lodash library's `_.last` function to access the last element of an array.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Native JavaScript (`data.at(-1)`)**:
	+ Pros: Fastest execution time, as it's a built-in method that doesn't require additional overhead.
	+ Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable as other methods, especially for those unfamiliar with native JavaScript methods.
* **Ramda library (`R.last(data)`)**:
	+ Pros: More readable and maintainable than native JavaScript methods, as it's a functional programming approach that separates concerns.
	+ Cons: May have slower execution times due to the additional overhead of the Ramda library.
* **Lodash library (`_.last(data)`)**:
	+ Pros: Similar to Ramda in terms of readability and maintainability, with an added layer of functionality (e.g., caching).
	+ Cons: Also may have slower execution times than native JavaScript methods.

**Library Descriptions**

In this benchmark:

* **Ramda**: A functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a concise and expressive way to work with data. In this test, `R.last(data)` is used to access the last element of an array.
* **Lodash**: A utility library for JavaScript that provides a comprehensive set of functions for working with data, strings, numbers, arrays, etc. In this test, `_last(data)` is used to access the last element of an array.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

None mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative methods to access the last element of an array, here are a few options:

* `Array.prototype.pop()`: Removes and returns the last element of an array.
* `Array.prototype.slice(-1)`: Returns a new array containing only the last element of the original array.
* `Array.prototype[Array.length - 1]`: Directly accesses the last element of an array using its index.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have slightly different performance characteristics compared to the native JavaScript method (`data.at(-1)`).

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/118.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 118 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Ramda	10107219.0 Ops/sec
Array (native)	31365674.0 Ops/sec
Lodash	10741383.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Last element (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash) (version: 0)

measures the speed of ramda's last vs Array's native at(-1) vs lodash last

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs Array (native) vs Lodash

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

Array (native)

Lodash

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):