Benchmark: underscore filter vs native

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var iterations = 100000;
var array = [0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];

Tests:

backbone
for (var i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { _.filter(array, function(element) { return element % 2 === 0 }); }
native
for (var i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { array.filter(function(element) { return element % 2 === 0 }); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
backbone
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 19 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Android 14; Mobile; rv:133.0) Gecko/133.0 Firefox/133.0

Browser/OS: Firefox Mobile 133 on Android

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
backbone	36.4 Ops/sec
native	119.3 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 its test cases.

**Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two approaches: using the `filter()` method with Underscore.js (a popular JavaScript utility library) versus the native implementation without any libraries.

**Script Preparation Code**

Before running each test case, the script prepares a fixed array (`array`) of values and defines a constant number of iterations (`iterations = 100000`). This ensures that both test cases perform the same amount of work, allowing for fair comparison.

```javascript
var iterations = 100000;
var array = [0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
```

**Html Preparation Code**

The benchmark includes a script tag that loads the Underscore.js library:

```html
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.8.3/underscore-min.js'></script>
```

This indicates that one of the test cases uses the `filter()` method with Underscore.js.

**Individual Test Cases**

The benchmark consists of two test cases:

1. **"backbone"`**: This test case uses the `filter()` method with Underscore.js:
```javascript
_.filter(array, function(element) { return element % 2 === 0 });
```

The `_` symbol is an alias for the Underscore.js library, which provides a concise way to access utility functions like `filter()`.
2. **"native"`**: This test case uses the native implementation without any libraries:
```javascript
array.filter(function(element) { return element % 2 === 0 });
```

**Benchmark Results**

The latest benchmark results show that:

* The "native" approach (without Underscore.js) outperforms the "backbone" approach (with Underscore.js).
* Both tests are executed at a rate of approximately 65.9 and 22.8 executions per second, respectively.

**Pros and Cons**

**Underscore.js Approach (Backbone)**

Pros:

* Easy to use: The `filter()` method is a familiar and concise way to achieve the desired result.
* Portable code: Using an existing library makes it easier to reuse the functionality across different projects.

Cons:

* Performance overhead: Adding another JavaScript file and library introduces additional complexity, which can lead to slower performance.

**Native Approach**

Pros:

* Optimized for performance: The native implementation is typically optimized for speed, resulting in faster execution times.
* Reduced overhead: No additional libraries or files are required, reducing the overall size of the codebase.

Cons:

* Steeper learning curve: Writing custom JavaScript code requires more effort and expertise to achieve the desired result.
* Code duplication: If the same functionality is needed elsewhere, duplicate code needs to be written.

**Considerations**

When choosing between these approaches, consider the following factors:

* Performance-critical applications: Opt for the native implementation if speed is paramount.
* Development efficiency: Using an existing library like Underscore.js can save time and effort, especially when working on projects with multiple similar requirements.
* Code maintainability: If code duplication or complexity becomes an issue, opt for the native approach to keep the codebase clean and focused.

**Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

1. Lodash (another popular JavaScript utility library): Offers a comprehensive set of functional programming utilities, including `filter()`.
2. Vanilla JavaScript: Implementing the `filter()` method from scratch using only vanilla JavaScript functions.
3. Other libraries: Depending on your specific requirements, you might want to explore other libraries like Moment.js for date and time manipulation or jQuery for DOM manipulation.

In summary, the benchmark highlights the trade-offs between using a utility library like Underscore.js versus implementing native code. While the native approach offers improved performance, it also requires more expertise and may lead to code duplication.

Related benchmarks:

underscore filter vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: backbone vs native

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

backbone

native

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):