Benchmark: Map (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash vs Immutable) - sample size 100 1

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/immutable/3.8.2/immutable.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function double(n) {
	return n*2;
}
//var data = [...Array(10000)].map((n, idx) => idx);
var data = _.range(10000);
var immutableData = Immutable.Seq(data);

Tests:

Ramda.map
R.map(double, data);
Array.prototype.map
data.map(double);
lodash.map
_.map(data, double);
Immutable.map
immutableData.map(double)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda.map
Array.prototype.map
lodash.map
Immutable.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 dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark measures the performance of different libraries (Ramda, Lodash, Immutable) and the native `Array.prototype.map()` method in JavaScript. The test case uses an array of 10,000 elements, which is doubled using a simple function (`double(n)`). This simplifies the comparison, as we're only interested in how each library performs on this specific operation.

**Library Options**

There are four libraries compared:

1. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a wide range of useful functions, including `map()`.
2. **Lodash**: A popular utility library that offers many helper functions, including `map()`.
3. **Immutable**: A library designed to provide immutable data structures, which can be beneficial for concurrency and predictable code execution.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of each library's performance:

*   **Ramda**: Pros:
    *   Optimized for functional programming.
    *   Provides fast and efficient implementations for common operations like `map()`.
    Cons:
    *   Requires importing the entire library, which can increase bundle size.
*   **Lodash**: Pros:
    *   Widely adopted and well-maintained.
    *   Offers a broad range of utility functions, including `map()`.
    Cons:
    *   Can be slower than native implementations due to additional overhead from function calls.
*   **Immutable**: Pros:
    *   Provides immutable data structures, which can improve code predictability and concurrency.
    Cons:
    *   May introduce additional complexity for simple operations like `map()`.

**Native Array.prototype.map()**

The native implementation of `Array.prototype.map()` is generally the fastest since it's optimized by the JavaScript engine. However, its performance may vary depending on the specific use case and environment.

**Other Considerations**

*   **Cache locality**: When working with large arrays, cache locality can significantly impact performance. The native implementation tends to perform better in this regard.
*   **Thread safety**: Immutable libraries like Immutable are designed for concurrency and thread safety, but they may introduce additional overhead compared to native implementations.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

Each test case is designed to measure the performance of a specific library or native implementation:

1.  `R.map(double, data)`: Measures Ramda's `map()` function.
2.  `data.map(double)`: Measures the native `Array.prototype.map()` method.
3.  `_.map(data, double)`: Measures Lodash's `map()` function.
4.  `immutableData.map(double)`: Measures Immutable's `map()` function.

The test results show that Immutable's `map()` function performed the best in this specific benchmark, followed closely by Ramda and then the native implementation of `Array.prototype.map()`. However, it's essential to note that these results may vary depending on the specific use case and environment.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/110.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 110 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Ramda.map	46607.2 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.map	8635.6 Ops/sec
lodash.map	37612.3 Ops/sec
Immutable.map	7100279.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Map (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash vs Immutable) - sample size 100 1 (version: 3)

measures the speed of ramda's map vs Array's native map vs lodash map vs Immutable map

Comparing performance of: Ramda.map vs Array.prototype.map vs lodash.map vs Immutable.map

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Ramda.map

Array.prototype.map

lodash.map

Immutable.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):