Benchmark: Lodash _.some vs native findIndex !== -1

HTML Preparation code:

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

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [false, false, false, false, false, true]

Tests:

Native findIndex !== -1
arr.findIndex(Boolean) !== -1
Lodash some
_.some(arr, Boolean)
Native some
arr.some(Boolean)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native findIndex !== -1
Lodash some
Native some

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the provided benchmark.

The test measures the performance of JavaScript arrays with native `some` and `findIndex` methods against Lodash's `some` method.

**Native `some` vs `findIndex !== -1`**

This option compares two approaches to achieve a similar result:

1. **Native `some`**: This method checks if at least one element in the array is true, returning true as soon as it finds a truthy value.
2. **`findIndex !== -1`**: This method searches for an index where the element is truthy and returns that index. If no such element is found, it returns -1.

**Pros and Cons:**

* Native `some`:
	+ Pros:
		- Lightweight and efficient, as it only checks one element at a time.
		- Can be inlined by the JavaScript engine, reducing overhead.
	+ Cons:
		- May not be as readable or intuitive for developers familiar with Lodash.
		- Requires explicit checks for edge cases (e.g., empty arrays).
* `findIndex !== -1`:
	+ Pros:
		- More expressive and concise, as it directly returns the index of a truthy element.
		- Easier to understand for developers familiar with Lodash.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires more memory accesses, as it searches the entire array.
		- May incur additional overhead due to the search operation.

**Lodash `some`**

This method uses a callback function to iterate over the array and checks if any element is truthy. It returns true as soon as it finds a truthy value.

Pros:

* More readable and expressive than native approaches
* Can be more efficient for large arrays due to caching and iteration optimizations

Cons:

* Requires an additional library import, which adds overhead.
* May incur additional memory accesses due to the iteration process.

**Special JS features or syntax**

None are mentioned in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that modern JavaScript has various features like `for...of`, `Array.prototype.forEach()`, and `Promise.then()` that can also be used for array iteration and checks.

**Other alternatives**

Other approaches to achieve the same result include:

* Using `some()` with a callback function, similar to Lodash: `arr.some(Boolean)`. This is essentially equivalent to using native `some`.
* Using `every()` instead of `some`, which returns true if all elements are truthy: `arr.every(Boolean)`. This is less efficient than `some` for this specific benchmark.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not be suitable for all use cases, and the choice of method depends on personal preference, readability requirements, and performance considerations.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/109.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 109 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native findIndex !== -1	4981434.0 Ops/sec
Lodash some	3746937.5 Ops/sec
Native some	5057332.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Lodash _.some vs native findIndex !== -1 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native findIndex !== -1 vs Lodash some vs Native some

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Native findIndex !== -1

Lodash some

Native some

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 27 days ago):