Benchmark: Array Map Vs Lodash Map (1)

HTML Preparation code:

<script type="text/javascript" src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.core.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var array = [{a: 1, b: 1}, {a: 2, b:2}, {a: 3, b:3}];

Tests:

array.map
array.map(a => a.a)
lodash map
_.map(array, a => a.a)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
array.map
lodash map

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 JSON data and explain what is being tested on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark definition represents two separate tests: `array.map` and `lodash.map`. Both tests aim to measure the performance of JavaScript arrays using the `map()` function, but with a difference in approach.

**Test Cases**

1. **Array Map (`array.map(a => a.a)`)**:
	* This test uses only native JavaScript's built-in `map()` method without any additional libraries.
	* The callback function takes an object as input and returns its `a` property.
	* This is the base case being measured, which represents the vanilla JavaScript implementation of the `map()` function.

2. **Lodash Map (`_.map(array, a => a.a)`)**:
	* This test uses Lodash's `map()` function, which is a third-party utility library for functional programming.
	* The callback function takes an object as input and returns its `a` property, similar to the native JavaScript implementation.

**Options Compared**

In this benchmark, two options are being compared:

1. **Native JavaScript (`array.map`)**
2. **Lodash (`lodash.map`)**

These two implementations differ in their approach to the `map()` function:

* **Native JavaScript**: Uses its built-in `map()` method, which is optimized for performance and simplicity.
* **Lodash**: Utilizes a separate library that provides an implementation of the `map()` function. While this offers more features and flexibility, it may incur additional overhead due to the inclusion of extra functionality.

**Pros and Cons**

**Native JavaScript (Array.Map)**

Pros:

* Fast execution speed
* Lightweight and efficient
* Built-in implementation with minimal overhead

Cons:

* Limited functionality compared to Lodash
* May not provide more advanced features or utility functions

**Lodash (Lodash.Map)**

Pros:

* Provides additional features and utility functions beyond the basic `map()` function
* Can offer more flexibility in handling complex data structures

Cons:

* Additional overhead due to the inclusion of extra functionality
* Slower execution speed compared to native JavaScript

**Library Considerations**

In this benchmark, Lodash is used as a third-party library for the `map()` function. This is an example of how libraries can be utilized to extend or enhance existing functions.

**JavaScript Features and Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax mentioned in the provided JSON data. However, it's worth noting that some newer versions of JavaScript (e.g., ECMAScript 2022) have introduced new features like `const` and `let` as default for variable declarations, but these are not used in this specific benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to Lodash could be:

* **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library similar to Lodash.
* **Built-in JavaScript methods**: Other built-in JavaScript methods like `forEach()` or `reduce()` might also be considered as alternatives for the `map()` function.
* **Native implementations**: Some browsers have implemented native optimizations for specific functions, such as WebAssembly's native code generation.

In summary, this benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: using only native JavaScript's built-in `map()` method versus utilizing a third-party library like Lodash. The choice between these options depends on the desired balance between functionality and execution speed.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
array.map	20050900.0 Ops/sec
lodash map	7628672.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Array Map Vs Lodash Map (1) (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: array.map vs lodash map

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

array.map

lodash map

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):