Benchmark: lodashsss vs es6sss

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="
https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.21/lodash.min.js
"></script>

Script Preparation code:

function double(n) {
	return n*2;
}
var data = [...Array(20)].map((v, idx) => idx);

Tests:

lodash
_.map(double, data);
es6
data.map(double);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
es6

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 MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark with two test cases: `lodash` and `es6`. The benchmark measures the performance difference between using the Lodash library (`lodash`) versus a vanilla JavaScript implementation (`es6`) for a specific task.

In the "Script Preparation Code" section, we see that a simple function `double(n)` is defined, which takes an input `n` and returns its double value. This function is then used to create an array of numbers with 20 elements using the spread operator (`Array(20).map((v, idx) => idx)`).

The "Html Preparation Code" section includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library from a CDN.

**Options being compared**

In this benchmark, we have two main options being compared:

1. **Lodash library**: The `lodash` option uses the popular Lodash library to perform the mapping operation on the array.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript implementation (es6)**: The `es6` option performs the same mapping operation using only vanilla JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

**Lodash library:**

Pros:

* Provides a convenient and efficient way to perform common operations like mapping, filtering, and reducing.
* Often includes a wide range of utility functions that can simplify code.

Cons:

* Requires an external library, which may add overhead in terms of download time and size.
* May introduce additional dependencies in the project.

**Vanilla JavaScript implementation (es6):**

Pros:

* Avoids relying on an external library, reducing potential dependencies and overhead.
* Allows for more control over the implementation details.

Cons:

* Requires more manual effort to implement common operations like mapping.
* May result in less efficient or less readable code.

**Other considerations**

In this benchmark, we can observe that the `es6` option performs slightly better than the `lodash` option on the test device. This could be due to various factors, such as:

* The JavaScript engine used by the device may optimize vanilla JavaScript implementations more effectively.
* The Lodash library may introduce additional overhead or overhead costs for memory management.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functions for common tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and object transformation. It's often used to simplify code and improve performance in many applications.

**Special JS feature: None mentioned**

In this benchmark, we don't see any special JavaScript features or syntax being tested. The focus is on the performance difference between using a library versus a vanilla implementation.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for measuring performance differences like this one, here are some options:

1. **Benchmarking libraries**: Libraries like Benchmark.js or micro-benchmark can help you create and run benchmarks with ease.
2. **Browser-specific benchmarking tools**: Some browsers, like Chrome DevTools, offer built-in benchmarking tools that allow you to compare the performance of different implementations.
3. **Custom testing frameworks**: You can also create your own custom testing framework using a combination of JavaScript and your preferred testing library.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own strengths and weaknesses, so it's essential to evaluate each option based on your specific needs and goals.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 16_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/16.1 Mobile/15E148 Safari/604.1

Browser/OS: Mobile Safari 16 on iOS 16.1.1

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	1831735.2 Ops/sec
es6	3502437.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

lodashsss vs es6sss (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs es6

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

es6

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):