Benchmark: Moz lodash map vs es6 map

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

const j = [1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 35, 49, 68, 74, 86, 93, 110, 121, 135, 141, 156, 157, 158, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168]

function lodashmap () {
  arr = _.map(j, function(el){
    return el * 10
  })
  console.log(arr)
}

function jsmap () {
  arr = j.map(function(el){
    return el * 10
  })
  console.log(arr)
}

Tests:

lodash map
lodashmap()
native map
jsmap()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash map
native map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_5) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/83.0.4103.116 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 83 on Mac OS X 10.15.5

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash map	18209.1 Ops/sec
native map	18646.3 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and other considerations.

**Benchmark Overview**

The test compares two approaches to create an array by mapping over a given array:

1. **Lodash `map()`**: Using the Lodash library, which provides a utility function for mapping over arrays.
2. **Native JavaScript `map()`**: The built-in Array.prototype.map() method in JavaScript.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares the two approaches in terms of performance. Specifically, it measures the number of executions per second (ExecutionsPerSecond) on a desktop platform with Chrome 83 browser and Mac OS X 10.15.5 operating system.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash `map()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a convenient and reusable way to map over arrays.
		+ Handles edge cases, such as null or undefined values, more robustly.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an external dependency (the Lodash library) to the codebase.
		+ May introduce overhead due to the library's functionality.
2. **Native JavaScript `map()`**:
	* Pros:
		+ No additional dependencies are required.
		+ Typically faster than using a library, as it's implemented in native code.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires a good understanding of the Array.prototype.map() method and its behavior.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string manipulation, and more. The `map()` function is one of the core functions in Lodash, allowing users to easily map over arrays and perform transformations on each element.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark beyond standard JavaScript and the Array.prototype.map() method.

**Other Considerations**

* **Benchmarking**: This benchmark is designed to measure performance, specifically the number of executions per second. However, other factors like memory usage, CPU utilization, or garbage collection pauses may also impact performance.
* **Platform and Browser**: The benchmark runs on a specific desktop platform (Mac OS X 10.15.5) with Chrome 83 browser, which might not be representative of all platforms or browsers.
* **Code Quality**: While this benchmark is likely written to test performance specifically, it's still important to maintain good code quality principles, such as clear and concise function names, proper variable naming, and error handling.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to Lodash or Native JavaScript `map()` in your own projects:

* **Other utility libraries**: Depending on your needs, other libraries like Underscore.js or Ramda might be suitable replacements.
* **Built-in functions**: If you need more basic array manipulation functionality, built-in Array.prototype methods like filter(), reduce(), and some operations can often serve as alternatives to `map()`.
* **Homebrew solutions**: In some cases, implementing your own custom solution using native JavaScript code or other languages might be a viable option.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on your specific project requirements, constraints, and preferences.

Related benchmarks:

Moz lodash map vs es6 map (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash map vs native map

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash map

native map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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