Benchmark: isEmpty vs. vanilla

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

window.arr = []

Tests:

isEmpty
_.isEmpty([]);
vanilla
[].length

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
isEmpty
vanilla

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The `Script Preparation Code` section sets up an array `arr` on the global window object, initializing it as an empty array `[]`. This is done to ensure that the benchmark has a consistent starting point. The `Html Preparation Code` includes a script tag that loads the Lodash library, version 4.17.5. Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various helper functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array and object operations, and more.

**Individual Test Cases**

There are two test cases:

1. `isEmpty`: This test case uses the Lodash function `_` (pronounced "underscore") to check if an empty array (`[]`) is empty using the `_.isEmpty()` method.
2. `vanilla`: This test case checks the length of an empty array using the built-in JavaScript syntax `[].length`.

**Comparison**

The two approaches are compared:

* Lodash's `_` function provides a convenient and expressive way to check if an object (in this case, an array) is empty or not.
* The built-in JavaScript syntax uses the `[]` syntax to create an array and then checks its length using the `.length` property.

**Pros and Cons**

**Lodash approach:**

Pros:

* Convenient and expressive way to check for emptiness
* Reduces boilerplate code

Cons:

* Requires the Lodash library to be loaded, which may not be desirable in all cases (e.g., if performance is a concern)
* May have additional overhead due to the library's size and complexity

**Vanilla approach:**

Pros:

* No external libraries are required
* Efficient and lightweight

Cons:

* More verbose and requires explicit syntax for checking array length

**Other Considerations**

* The Lodash library provides many other useful functions beyond just emptiness checks, making it a valuable tool for developers.
* The use of Lodash in this benchmark may skew results if not all test environments have the library available or loaded correctly.

**Special JS Features/ Syntax: None mentioned**

As there are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these tests, I won't provide any additional explanations.

**Alternatives**

For testing array emptiness, other approaches could include:

* Using a custom function to check for emptiness, without relying on an external library.
* Leveraging native browser APIs, such as the `Array.prototype.length` property.
* Implementing a simple iteration-based approach to check if the array is empty.

However, these alternatives may not be as convenient or expressive as using Lodash's `_` function.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_3) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/83.0.4103.61 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 83 on Mac OS X 10.15.3

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
isEmpty	3668787.0 Ops/sec
vanilla	760274432.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

isEmpty vs. vanilla (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: isEmpty vs vanilla

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

isEmpty

vanilla

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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