Benchmark: Ramda vs. Lodash vs Lodash fp What

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.rawgit.com/ivolovikov/fastest-clone/master/index.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)'></script>

Script Preparation code:

// intial data
var source = {a:1,b:1,c:1,d:1,e:1,f:1,g:1,h:{a:-1,b:1,c:1,d:1,e:1,f:1,g:1}};
var fp = _.noConflict();

Tests:

Lodash
var result = _.cloneDeep(source); // adding checking to prevent compiler optimization if (result.h.a != -1) throw new Error('Object not clonned'); result.h.a = Math.random();
Ramda without relying on currying or composition
var result = R.clone(source); // adding checking to prevent compiler optimization if (result.h.a != -1) throw new Error('Object not clonned'); result.h.a = Math.random();
Fast Clone
var result = fp.cloneDeep(source); // adding checking to prevent compiler optimization if (result.h.a != -1) throw new Error('Object not clonned'); result.h.a = Math.random();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Ramda without relying on currying or composition
Fast Clone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark analysis.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark compares the performance of three libraries: Ramda, Lodash (with and without functional programming), and Fastest Clone. The task is to clone a complex object using each library.

**Options Compared**

1. **Ramda**: Uses Ramda's `cloneDeep` function with default options.
2. **Lodash (without FP)**: Uses Lodash's `_.cloneDeep` function, which is the non-functional programming version of the library.
3. **Fastest Clone**: Uses Fastest Clone's `cloneDeep` function.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Ramda**: Pros:
	+ Efficient cloning with minimal memory allocation.
	+ Can handle complex object structures efficiently.
* Cons: May require more manual handling for certain edge cases.
* **Lodash (without FP)**: Pros:
	+ Widely used and well-maintained library.
	+ Easy to learn and use, especially for developers familiar with traditional programming paradigms.
* Cons:
	+ May perform poorly on large or complex objects due to its non-functional programming nature.
	+ Can lead to more memory allocation and copying, potentially affecting performance.
* **Fastest Clone**: Pros:
	+ Optimized for performance, using techniques like caching and memoization.
	+ Efficient cloning with minimal memory allocation.
* Cons: May require additional setup or configuration, as it's a custom library.

**Libraries Used**

1. **Ramda**: A functional programming library for JavaScript.
2. **Lodash**: A utility library that includes functions for cloning, among others.
3. **Fastest Clone**: A custom library designed for efficient object cloning.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**
None mentioned in the benchmark code or description. However, it's worth noting that Ramda and Lodash use functional programming concepts like currying and composition, which can be beneficial for some developers but may require additional learning for others.

**Other Alternatives**

1. **Underscore.js**: Another utility library with cloning functionality.
2. **Immer.js**: A library specifically designed for efficient object updates and cloning.
3. **lodash-es**: The functional programming version of Lodash, which might offer better performance on large or complex objects.

These alternatives can be considered depending on the specific use case and requirements of your project.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/81.0.4044.138 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 81 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	274804.8 Ops/sec
Ramda without relying on currying or composition	376391.9 Ops/sec
Fast Clone	211177.4 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Ramda vs. Lodash vs Lodash fp What (version: 0)

Compares performance on the same task using Lodash vs Ramda vs Fastest Clone.

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Ramda without relying on currying or composition vs Fast Clone

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Ramda without relying on currying or composition

Fast Clone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):