Benchmark: lodash slice - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var test = [5, 4, 3, 2, 1];

Tests:

_.slice
_.slice(test, 2);
Array.slice
test.slice(2);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.slice
Array.slice

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/79.0.3945.79 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 79 on Mac OS X 10.13.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.slice	3758653.0 Ops/sec
Array.slice	7916974.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of MeasureThat.net and explore what's being tested in this benchmark.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided JSON represents a benchmark definition, which includes a script preparation code, an HTML preparation code, individual test cases, and latest benchmark results.

**What is being tested?**

The test case uses the `lodash` library, which is a popular utility library for JavaScript. In this specific case, two test cases are being compared:

1. `_.slice(test, 2);`: This test case uses the `_` alias from Lodash to call the `slice()` function on the `test` array.
2. `test.slice(2);`: This test case uses the native `Array.prototype.slice()` method to achieve the same result.

**Options compared**

The two test cases are comparing the performance of using a utility library (`lodash`) versus the native JavaScript implementation (`Array.prototype.slice()`).

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

1. **Lodash (`.slice()`)**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable code, as it's a function call instead of a method chain.
		+ Can be more convenient for developers who are used to working with Lodash functions.
	* Cons:
		+ Slower due to the overhead of loading and parsing the library.
		+ May have additional dependencies (although not shown in this example).
2. **Native JavaScript (`Array.prototype.slice()`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Faster, as it's a native implementation with less overhead.
		+ No additional dependencies.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a utility library for JavaScript that provides a collection of functions for tasks such as:

* String manipulation
* Array and object manipulation
* Function utility functions

In this benchmark, the `_` alias from Lodash is used to access the `slice()` function, which is then called on the `test` array.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. Both examples use standard JavaScript syntax and libraries (Lodash).

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for implementing the `slice()` method include:

* Using a different utility library, such as Underscore.js.
* Implementing your own custom `slice()` function.
* Using a JavaScript framework or library that provides an implementation of `Array.prototype.slice()`, such as React or Angular.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have their own pros and cons, and the performance results might vary depending on the specific implementation and use case.

Related benchmarks:

lodash slice (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.slice vs Array.slice

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.slice

Array.slice

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):