<script src='https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/g/lodash@4(lodash.min.js+lodash.fp.min.js)'></script>
var fp = _.noConflict();
var array = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p', 'q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z'];
var reducer = (r, x) => r + x;
array.reduce(reducer, '');
_.reduce(array, reducer, '');
fp.reduce(reducer, '')(array);
--enable-precise-memory-info
flag.
Test case name | Result |
---|---|
Native | |
Lodash | |
Lodash FP |
Test name | Executions per second |
---|---|
Native | 4689534.0 Ops/sec |
Lodash | 7997755.0 Ops/sec |
Lodash FP | 1346608.8 Ops/sec |
Let's break down the provided benchmark definition and test cases.
What is tested:
The benchmark measures the performance of three approaches for reducing an array:
reduce
method, which uses JavaScript's native implementation._reduce
method from the popular JavaScript utility library Lodash (v4).fp.reduce
function from Lodash, specifically designed for functional programming.Options compared:
The benchmark compares the performance of each approach:
Pros and Cons:
Library usage:
The benchmark uses the following library:
_reduce
method is used in this benchmark.Special JS feature/syntax:
None of the test cases use any special or experimental JavaScript features. They only rely on standard language features and the provided libraries (Lodash).
Other alternatives:
If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches for array reduction, consider:
Observable
class with methods like reduce()
or reduceObservable()
.lodash-es
) or polyfills (like lodash-clone
) might provide similar functionality to Lodash.Keep in mind that each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and requirements.