Benchmark: Lodash vs Ramda vs Underscore 1.9.0 vs native

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  window.lodash = _;
  _ = null;
</script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.9.0/underscore.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

  var data = _.range(100000).map(function(i) {
    return {
      counter: i
    }
  });
  
  function isOdd(num) {
    return num % 2 === 1;
  }
  
  function square(num) {
    return num * num;
  }
  
  function lessThanThreeDigits(num) {
    return num.toString().length < 3;
  }

Tests:

Lodash
var result = lodash.chain(data) .map(item => item.counter) .filter(isOdd) .map(square) .filter(lessThanThreeDigits) .value();
Ramda without relying on currying or composition
var result = R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits, R.map(square, R.filter(isOdd, R.pluck('counter', data))));
Ramda with currying and composition
var result = R.pipe( R.pluck('counter'), R.filter(isOdd), R.map(square), R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits) )(data);
Underscore
var result = _.chain(data) .map(item => item.counter) .filter(isOdd) .map(square) .filter(lessThanThreeDigits) .value();
Native
var result = data .map(item => item.counter) .filter(isOdd) .map(square) .filter(lessThanThreeDigits)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
Ramda without relying on currying or composition
Ramda with currying and composition
Underscore
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Explanation**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of four different libraries: Lodash, Ramda, Underscore, and native JavaScript (without any library).

**Libraries and Their Purposes**

1. **Lodash**: A popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript. It provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string formatting, and more.
2. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that builds on top of Lodash's API. It provides a set of higher-order functions to compose and manipulate data.
3. **Underscore**: Another popular utility library for functional programming in JavaScript. It provides a smaller set of functions compared to Lodash, but is still widely used.

**Benchmark Test Cases**

Each test case uses one of the libraries or native JavaScript to perform the same operation: filtering an array of objects based on three conditions:

* `isOdd`: checks if a number is odd
* `square`: squares a number
* `lessThanThreeDigits`: checks if a number has fewer than 3 digits

The test cases use different approaches to achieve this:

1. **Lodash**: Uses the `chain()` method to create a pipeline of operations, which are then executed in order.
2. **Ramda**: Uses a combination of higher-order functions to compose and manipulate data. There are two test cases:
	* "Ramda without relying on currying or composition": uses the `filter()` function directly
	* "Ramda with currying and composition": uses the `pipe()` function to compose operations
3. **Underscore**: Uses the `chain()` method similar to Lodash, but with a smaller set of functions.
4. **Native JavaScript**: Does not use any library and achieves the same result using simple array manipulation.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each library or native JavaScript approach in executing the test case. The results are measured by the number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Lodash**: Pros:
	* Widely used and well-maintained
	* Provides a wide range of functions for various tasks
Cons:
	* Can be slower due to the pipeline approach
2. **Ramda**: Pros:
	* Provides higher-order functions for functional programming
	* Can lead to more concise code
Cons:
	* Steeper learning curve due to its API
3. **Underscore**: Pros:
	* Smaller and more lightweight than Lodash or Ramda
	* Easy to learn and use
Cons:
	* Limited set of functions compared to other libraries
4. **Native JavaScript**: Pros:
	* Fastest execution time
	* No additional library dependencies

**Other Considerations**

When choosing a library for functional programming, consider the following:

* Learning curve: How much do you need to learn about the library's API and concepts?
* Functionality: What specific functions or operations do you need to perform?
* Performance: Are speed and efficiency critical in your application?

Ultimately, the choice of library depends on your personal preference, project requirements, and the trade-offs between development time, maintenance costs, and performance.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/91.0.4472.114 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 91 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	99.3 Ops/sec
Ramda without relying on currying or composition	84.7 Ops/sec
Ramda with currying and composition	79.0 Ops/sec
Underscore	94.4 Ops/sec
Native	92.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash vs Ramda vs Underscore 1.9.0 vs native (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Ramda without relying on currying or composition vs Ramda with currying and composition vs Underscore vs Native

Created: 5 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

Ramda without relying on currying or composition

Ramda with currying and composition

Underscore

Native

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):