Benchmark: _.isEmpty vs Array.length long array

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.arr = []
for (let i; i < 100; i = i + 1) {
    window.arr.push(i)
}

Tests:

_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty(window.arr)
Array.prototype.length
window.arr.length === 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.isEmpty
Array.prototype.length

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/104.0.5112.81 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 104 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.isEmpty	3306041.2 Ops/sec
Array.prototype.length	7156725.0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark definition and options being compared.

**Benchmark Definition:**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches:

1. Using `_.isEmpty` from the Lodash library, which checks if an array is empty by using a boolean value (`true` for empty arrays and `false` otherwise).
2. Using `Array.prototype.length === 0`, which checks if an array has no elements by comparing its length to zero.

**Options being compared:**

The two options are:

1. Lodash's `_.isEmpty`
	* Pros:
		+ Provides a concise and readable way to check for empty arrays.
		+ Uses optimized C++ code under the hood, making it efficient.
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an external library dependency, which may slow down execution.
		+ May not be suitable for very large arrays due to memory usage.
2. Built-in `Array.prototype.length === 0`
	* Pros:
		+ Uses a built-in method, making it faster and more efficient compared to Lodash's implementation.
		+ Does not add any external dependencies.

**Other considerations:**

Both approaches have similar performance characteristics in terms of execution time, but the built-in approach is generally faster due to its optimized C++ implementation. However, when dealing with very large arrays, using `_.isEmpty` might be more suitable as it avoids excessive memory allocation and deallocation.

**Library usage (Lodash):**

The benchmark uses Lodash version 4.17.4, which includes the `_.isEmpty` method. The purpose of this library is to provide a collection of helper functions for common tasks, such as data manipulation, array utilities, and more.

**JavaScript feature/syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark, apart from using the `window.arr` variable, which is created dynamically by running the script preparation code. The use of `window.arr` allows the benchmark to create a large array for testing purposes.

**Alternative approaches:**

Other alternatives to these two options could include:

1. Using other library functions (e.g., `Array.prototype.every`, `Array.prototype.some`) that might provide similar results.
2. Implementing a custom solution using native JavaScript methods, such as iterating over the array and checking each element for emptiness.
3. Utilizing WebAssembly or other low-level optimization techniques to further improve performance.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have varying degrees of complexity, efficiency, and readability, depending on the specific use case and requirements.

Related benchmarks:

_.isEmpty vs Array.length long array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of _.isEmpty vs Array.length on a long array

Comparing performance of: _.isEmpty vs Array.prototype.length

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

Array.prototype.length

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):