Benchmark: isEmpty - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

Lodash
const res = {}; _.isEmpty(res)
NATIVE
const res = {}; const isEmpty = obj => [Object, Array].includes((obj || {}).constructor) && !Object.entries((obj || {})).length; isEmpty(res);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash
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.

Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases to understand what is being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark named "isEmpty". The benchmark has two main components:

1. **Script Preparation Code**: This section is empty, which means that no custom JavaScript code needs to be executed before running the test.
2. **Html Preparation Code**: A script tag is included to load the Lodash library version 4.17.5.

**Test Cases:**

There are two individual test cases:

1. **Lodash**: This test case uses the `_.isEmpty()` function from the Lodash library to check if an empty object (`res`) is considered "empty". The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of using a pre-existing, optimized library for this specific task.
2. **NATIVE**: This test case implements a custom implementation of the `isEmpty` function. It checks if the object's constructor is in the array `[Object, Array]` and if the object has no entries (i.e., it's empty). The purpose of this test is to measure the performance of writing a custom, optimized solution for this specific task.

**Comparison:**

The two test cases are compared to determine which approach is faster. In this case, the Lodash implementation appears to be significantly faster than the native implementation.

**Pros and Cons:**

1. **Lodash Implementation:**
	* Pros:
		+ Uses an optimized library for a specific task.
		+ Reduces code duplication and maintenance efforts.
	* Cons:
		+ Introduces an external dependency (the Lodash library).
		+ May require additional setup or configuration.
2. **Native Implementation:**
	* Pros:
		+ Does not introduce any external dependencies.
		+ Can be optimized specifically for the test use case.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires more code duplication and maintenance efforts.
		+ May result in slower performance due to the overhead of custom implementation.

**Library:**

In this benchmark, the Lodash library is used. Lodash (pronounced "lodash") is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a comprehensive set of functional programming tools and helpers. Its `isEmpty()` function checks if an object or array is empty by checking its length or constructor.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes used in this benchmark. The implementation relies on standard JavaScript language features, such as objects, arrays, and the `includes` method.

**Other Alternatives:**

If you were to implement a similar benchmark, you could consider using other libraries or approaches, such as:

1. Other JavaScript utility libraries (e.g., Moment.js for date-related functions).
2. Custom implementations using different programming paradigms (e.g., functional programming with Redux or React).
3. Online services or frameworks that provide optimized code snippets for specific tasks.

However, for this particular benchmark, the choice between Lodash and a native implementation seems to be driven by performance considerations.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Lodash	5765395.5 Ops/sec
NATIVE	2729983.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

isEmpty (version: 0)

IsEmpty faster than js

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs NATIVE

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash

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):