Benchmark: Array.prototype.map vs Ramda.map

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>
<script type='text/javascript' src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/immutable/3.8.2/immutable.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

function double(n) {
	return n*2;
}
var data = [];
for(i = 0; i < 100; i++) { data.push(i) }

Tests:

Array.prototype.map
data.map(double)
Ramda.map
R.map(double, data);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.prototype.map
Ramda.map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_13_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 67 on Mac OS X 10.13.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.prototype.map	489137.8 Ops/sec
Ramda.map	994512.8 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 provided benchmark JSON and explain what is being tested.

**Overview**

The test compares the performance of two mapping functions: `Array.prototype.map` (native JavaScript) and `R.map` (from the Ramda library). Both functions are used to double each element in an array, but they operate on different data structures and have distinct syntax.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Native JavaScript**: `Array.prototype.map`
	* Purpose: This is the built-in mapping function for JavaScript arrays.
	* Pros:
		+ Fast and efficient
		+ Widely supported across browsers and Node.js versions
	* Cons:
		+ Limited to working with native JavaScript arrays only
		+ May have performance issues with very large datasets or complex transformations
2. **Ramda library**: `R.map`
	* Purpose: This is a functional programming library that provides various mapping functions, including `map`.
	* Pros:
		+ More flexible and powerful than native JavaScript's `map` function
		+ Works with other data structures besides arrays (e.g., objects, sets)
	* Cons:
		+ Adds an external dependency (the Ramda library) that may impact performance or security
		+ May have slower execution times compared to native JavaScript's `map`

**Library and Purpose**

The Ramda library is a popular functional programming library for JavaScript. Its `map` function provides a concise way to apply a transformation function to each element of an array, returning a new array with the transformed elements.

In this benchmark, `R.map` is used in conjunction with the `double` function to double each element in the data array.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two existing functions (`Array.prototype.map` and `R.map`) rather than testing new or experimental language features.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative mapping functions, some other options include:

* Lodash's `map`
* Immutable.js's `map`
* Built-in functions from other libraries (e.g., Clojure's `map`, Scala's `map`)
* Custom implementation using iteration and loops

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, flexibility, or compatibility with various data structures.

Related benchmarks:

Array.prototype.map vs Ramda.map (version: 2)

Comparing performance of: Array.prototype.map vs Ramda.map

Created: 6 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Array.prototype.map

Ramda.map

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):