Benchmark: Map (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash vs Immutable) with lambda function

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:

var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30];

Tests:

Ramda.map
R.map((n) => n*n, data);
Array.prototype.map
data.map((n) => n*n);
lodash.map
_.map(data, (n) => n*n);
Immutable.map
Immutable.fromJS(data).map((n) => n*n)

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

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/17.5 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 17 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Ramda.map	2963860.2 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.map	4984251.0 Ops/sec
lodash.map	4232778.0 Ops/sec
Immutable.map	516202.8 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.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of different libraries' mapping functions on an array of numbers:

1. Native JavaScript `Array.prototype.map`
2. Lodash (`_.map`)
3. Ramda (`R.map`)
4. Immutable.js (`Immutable.map`)

**Library Description and Purpose**

* **Lodash**: A popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string processing, and more. `_.map` is part of Lodash's core functionality, allowing users to map over arrays.
* **Ramda**: A functional programming library for JavaScript that provides a set of higher-order functions for working with arrays, objects, and more. `R.map` is one of Ramda's primary mapping functions.
* **Immutable.js**: A library that helps developers work with immutable data structures, ensuring that state changes are predictable and easier to reason about. `Immutable.map` is part of Immutable.js's core functionality, allowing users to map over arrays.

**Native JavaScript `Array.prototype.map`**

The native JavaScript implementation of the `map()` method is being tested. This is the built-in function provided by the ECMAScript standard for mapping over arrays.

Pros:

* **Performance**: Native code has direct access to hardware resources, making it generally faster than library implementations.
* **Optimized**: The JavaScript engine likely optimizes this method for specific use cases, reducing overhead.

Cons:

* **Limited Functionality**: `Array.prototype.map` only works on native arrays and does not provide the same level of functional programming support as libraries like Lodash or Ramda.
* **No Functional Programming Support**: Users must manually manage state changes within the mapped array, which can lead to issues with predictable behavior.

**Comparison Options**

The benchmark compares different mapping functions across various libraries:

1. Native JavaScript `Array.prototype.map`
2. Lodash (`_.map`)
3. Ramda (`R.map`)
4. Immutable.js (`Immutable.map`)

Each library offers a unique approach to array manipulation, catering to specific use cases and personal preferences.

Pros and Cons:

* **Lodash**: Offers extensive functionality for various tasks, but can introduce overhead due to its size and scope.
	+ Pros: Comprehensive set of utility functions, flexible syntax support.
	+ Cons: Larger bundle size, potential performance impact.
* **Ramda**: Provides a more functional programming-centric approach, emphasizing immutability and predictability.
	+ Pros: Smaller bundle size, concise syntax, easier to reason about code.
	+ Cons: Steeper learning curve due to its functional programming model.
* **Immutable.js**: Specializes in immutable data structures, ensuring predictable state changes and ease of debugging.
	+ Pros: Robust support for immutable data structures, easy to debug, predictable behavior.
	+ Cons: Limited functionality compared to native JavaScript or Lodash.

**Special JS Feature/ Syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax. However, the use of functional programming libraries like Ramda and Immutable.js might appeal to developers familiar with those paradigms.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these libraries, consider:

* **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.
* **Mocha Maps**: A lightweight library specifically designed for mapping over arrays in JavaScript environments without native `map()` support.
* **Closure Library**: A comprehensive set of functions and classes for working with arrays, objects, and more, aiming for a balance between performance and flexibility.

In summary, the benchmark provides insight into how different libraries compare when it comes to mapping over arrays. Each library offers unique strengths and weaknesses, catering to specific use cases and developer preferences.

Related benchmarks:

Map (Native vs Ramda vs Lodash vs Immutable) with lambda function (version: 0)

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: Guest

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 2 months ago):