Benchmark: underscore without vs filter

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = [0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17];

Tests:

without
const final = _.without(numbers, 16);
filter
const final = numbers.filter((num) => num !== 16);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
without
filter

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: `_.without(numbers, 16)` (using Underscore.js's `without` function) and `numbers.filter((num) => num !== 16)` (a custom implementation using the built-in `filter` method).

**Options Compared**

1. **Underscore.js's `without` function**: This is a utility function provided by the Underscore.js library, which removes all occurrences of an element from an array while preserving the original order.
2. **Built-in `filter` method**: This is a standard JavaScript method that creates a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Underscore.js's `without` function**:
	* Pros: Generally faster than custom implementations due to optimized native code.
	* Cons: Requires an external library (Underscore.js), which might add overhead for some users.
2. **Built-in `filter` method**:
	* Pros: No external dependencies, easy to implement and understand.
	* Cons: Might be slower than the optimized implementation provided by Underscore.js.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Performance**: The benchmark measures the performance of each approach in terms of executions per second. In this case, the custom `filter` implementation is slightly faster on Chrome 123 on Linux Desktop.
2. **Readability and Maintainability**: Using a built-in method like `filter` can be more readable and maintainable than implementing a custom solution.

**Underscore.js Library**

In the benchmark preparation code, Underscore.js version 1.8.3 is included using a CDN link (`https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js`). The `_.without` function is used to remove all occurrences of the element with index 16 from the `numbers` array.

**JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, apart from using modern JavaScript syntax like arrow functions (`(num) => num !== 16`) and template literals (`\r\n<script src='...'>`).

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/123.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 123 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
without	777521.2 Ops/sec
filter	7452574.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

underscore without vs filter (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: without vs filter

Created: 6 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

without

filter

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):