<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js'></script>
var array = ['http://', 'https://'];
var url = 'http://www.google.com';
_.some(array, (el) => _.includes(url, el));
const test = (el) => el.includes(url);
array.some(test);
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Lodash | |
ES6 |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Lodash | 1885605.1 Ops/sec |
ES6 | 4260386.5 Ops/sec |
Measuring the performance of JavaScript microbenchmarks is crucial to understand how different approaches affect the execution speed.
The provided JSON data represents two test cases:
1. Lodash vs ES6:
This benchmark compares two ways to check if a string contains one of multiple values:
* Using Lodash's _.some()
function with a callback that includes the URL using _._includes()
.
* Using a simple ES6 method string.includes()
.
Let's analyze the options:
Lodash approach:
Pros:
some
function.Cons:
ES6 approach:
Pros:
Cons:
includes
method and its behavior with arrays.Other considerations:
_.some()
and ES6's string.includes()
will depend on the specific requirements of your project, such as performance needs or maintainability concerns.Array.prototype.some()
or Array.prototype.find()
.The provided benchmark results show that the ES6 approach is slightly faster than Lodash in this specific test case. However, it's essential to note that performance differences may vary depending on the specific use case and JavaScript environment.
As for the library used by the test case, Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like string manipulation, array operations, and more. In this benchmark, Lodash is used to provide the _.some()
function, which allows developers to write concise code without having to implement complex logic.
There are other alternatives to Lodash, such as:
If you're interested in exploring alternative libraries or methods, I'd be happy to help!