Benchmark: Map - Native vs Lodash vs Ramda vs Sanctuary

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/lodash@4.17.11/lodash.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/ramda@0.26.1/dist/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/sanctuary-show@1.0.0/index.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/sanctuary-type-identifiers@2.0.1/index.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/sanctuary-type-classes@9.0.0/index.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/sanctuary-either@1.0.0/index.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/sanctuary-maybe@1.0.0/index.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/sanctuary-pair@1.0.0/index.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/sanctuary-def@0.18.1/index.js"></script>
<script src="https://unpkg.com/sanctuary@0.15.0/index.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Native
data.map(double);
Lodash
_.map(data, double);
Ramda
R.map(double, data);
Sanctuary
sanctuary.map(double)(data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Lodash
Ramda
Sanctuary

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 benchmark and explain what is being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of four different ways to perform a map operation on an array: native JavaScript, Lodash, Ramda, and Sanctuary. The input data is generated using the `Array(20)` constructor and mapped over with a simple function `double(n) { return n*2; }`.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

1. **Native JavaScript**: The built-in JavaScript map method.
2. **Lodash**: A popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript.
3. **Ramda**: Another popular functional programming library for JavaScript.
4. **Sanctuary**: A functional programming library specifically designed for JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Native JavaScript**:
	* Pros: Fastest execution time, no external dependencies.
	* Cons: May not be as readable or maintainable for complex operations.
2. **Lodash**:
	* Pros: Widely used and well-maintained library with a large community.
	* Cons: Adds an external dependency and may introduce performance overhead.
3. **Ramda**:
	* Pros: Well-organized and expressive API, supports functional programming principles.
	* Cons: May have a steeper learning curve due to its functional programming approach.
4. **Sanctuary**:
	* Pros: Optimized for performance and designed specifically for JavaScript, with a focus on functional programming.
	* Cons: Less widely adopted than Lodash or Ramda, may require additional learning.

**Library Overview**

The benchmark includes several libraries:

1. **Lodash**: A utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array operations, and more.
2. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a set of higher-order functions for working with arrays and objects.
3. **Sanctuary**: A functional programming library specifically designed for JavaScript, providing an optimized implementation of various data structures and algorithms.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

The benchmark does not explicitly mention any special JavaScript features or syntax, but it uses some advanced concepts:

1. **Arrow functions**: The `double(n) { return n*2; }` function is an example of an arrow function, a concise way to define small functions.
2. **Spread operator**: The `var data = [...Array(20)].map((v, idx) => idx);` line uses the spread operator to create a new array from an existing one.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to Lodash or Ramda, you may want to consider:

1. **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript.
2. **Mochascript**: A lightweight alternative to Ramda, with a focus on concise and expressive code.

For Sanctuary, you might look into other functional programming libraries like:

1. **Purescript**: A statically typed, purely functional programming language that compiles to JavaScript.
2. **TypeScript**: While not specifically designed for functional programming, TypeScript's type system can help simplify the use of functional APIs like Ramda or Sanctuary.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:126.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/126.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 126 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	12043559.0 Ops/sec
Lodash	10509062.0 Ops/sec
Ramda	7805760.5 Ops/sec
Sanctuary	307.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Map - Native vs Lodash vs Ramda vs Sanctuary (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native vs Lodash vs Ramda vs Sanctuary

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native

Lodash

Ramda

Sanctuary

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):