Benchmark: lodash flatmap 4.17.21

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/lodash/4.17.21/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var x = [1,2,3]

Array.prototype.flatMap = function(f) {
  return [].concat(...this.map(f))
}

Tests:

lodash.flatMap
_.flatMap(x,x => [x-1, x, x+1])
native
x.flatMap(x => [x-1, x, x+1])

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash.flatMap
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/102.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 102 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash.flatMap	5298955.0 Ops/sec
native	6580671.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what is being tested in this benchmark.

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares the performance of two approaches to implementing the `flatMap` method on an array: using Lodash (a popular utility library) and writing the implementation from scratch (also known as "native").

**Options Compared**

1. **Lodash `flatMap`**: This approach uses the existing `flatMap` method provided by the Lodash library, a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various helper functions for common tasks.
2. **Native Implementation**: This approach involves writing the `flatMap` method from scratch using standard JavaScript syntax and features.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **Lodash `flatMap`**:
	* Pros: Lodash is widely used, well-maintained, and optimized for performance. Using an existing implementation can reduce development time and minimize errors.
	* Cons: The user needs to include the Lodash library in their project, which may add additional complexity and size to the codebase.
2. **Native Implementation**:
	* Pros: Writing from scratch allows developers to understand the underlying mechanics of the `flatMap` method, which can lead to better performance and customization options. It also eliminates any potential dependencies on external libraries.
	* Cons: Implementing the `flatMap` method from scratch requires more development effort, may introduce errors or bugs, and might not be as efficient as the optimized Lodash implementation.

**Library - Lodash**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides various helper functions for common tasks, such as array manipulation, string processing, and object management. The `flatMap` method is part of this library, which helps to simplify the implementation by providing a well-tested and optimized function.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There is no mention of any special JavaScript features or syntax in the provided benchmark definition.

**Other Alternatives**

If you don't want to use Lodash or write a native implementation, other alternatives for implementing `flatMap` include:

1. Using the built-in `map()` and `concat()` methods: `Array.prototype.flatMap = function(f) { return this.map(f).concat(); }`
2. Implementing a custom array iterator: This approach would require a deeper understanding of JavaScript iterators and their interactions with arrays.
3. Using a different library or framework that provides an optimized `flatMap` method, such as Underscore.js or Ramda.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, complexity, and learning curves compared to the Lodash implementation.

Related benchmarks:

lodash flatmap 4.17.21 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash.flatMap vs native

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash.flatMap

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):