Benchmark: Map JS vs Lodash

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

JS map
const a = [1, 2, 3] const b = a.map(n => n +1)
Lodash map
const a = [1,2,3] const b = _.map(a, n => n +1)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JS map
Lodash map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches to achieve the same result: using native JavaScript (`JS map`) versus using the popular utility library Lodash (`Lodash map`).

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Native JavaScript (JS map)**: This approach uses the `map()` function provided by the ECMAScript standard, which is a built-in method of arrays in JavaScript.
2. **Lodash (Lodash map)**: This approach uses the `_map()` function from Lodash, a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for working with data structures.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

**Native JavaScript (JS map)**

Pros:

* Lightweight and compact, as it only requires the `map()` function
* No dependencies or additional libraries to load
* Fast execution, as it's a native function

Cons:

* May not be as readable or maintainable for complex operations
* Limited functionality compared to Lodash

**Lodash (Lodash map)**

Pros:

* More expressive and readable code, with the addition of utility functions like `map()`
* Provides additional functionality beyond what's available in the native JavaScript `map()` function
* Can be more convenient for developers familiar with Lodash

Cons:

* Adds an extra dependency to load, which can impact page load times or bundle size
* May have a slight performance penalty due to the added library overhead

**Library and Purpose**

Lodash is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for working with data structures. Its purpose is to provide a convenient and expressive way to perform common tasks, such as mapping, filtering, and reducing arrays.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The `map()` function is a standard part of the ECMAScript standard.

**Other Alternatives**

If you were to implement this benchmark using only native JavaScript, you might consider alternatives like:

* Using `forEach()` instead of `map()`
* Implementing your own mapping algorithm from scratch
* Using other libraries or frameworks that provide similar functionality

However, for most use cases, the native JavaScript `map()` function is a good choice due to its simplicity and performance.

For Lodash, if you wanted to implement this benchmark using only native JavaScript, you might consider implementing your own utility functions like `map()`, `filter()`, or `reduce()`. Alternatively, you could choose a different library that provides similar functionality.

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/98.0.4758.102 Safari/537.36 Edg/98.0.1108.56

Browser/OS: Chrome 98 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
JS map	5178235.5 Ops/sec
Lodash map	3303495.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Map JS vs Lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: JS map vs Lodash map

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

JS map

Lodash map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 29 days ago):