Benchmark: Ramda sort vs. native sort

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://unpkg.com/ramda@0.23.0/dist/ramda.js"></script>

Tests:

Ramda
const diff = function(a, b) { return a - b; }; const bigArray = new Array(1000).fill(null).map(() => Math.floor(Math.random() * 200)); R.sort(diff, bigArray);
Native
const diff = function(a, b) { return a - b; }; const bigArray = new Array(1000).fill(null).map(() => Math.floor(Math.random() * 200)); bigArray.sort(diff)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Ramda
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two approaches: using the Ramda library to sort an array, and using the native JavaScript `sort` method.

**Options Compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **Ramda Sort**: Using the Ramda library to sort an array. The Ramda library provides a functional programming approach to array manipulation.
2. **Native Sort**: Using the native JavaScript `sort` method, which is a imperative approach to sorting arrays.

**Pros and Cons**

**Ramda Sort:**

Pros:

* Can be more concise and expressive in terms of code
* May provide better performance for certain use cases (e.g., stable sort)

Cons:

* Requires including an additional library (Ramda)
* May have overhead due to the addition of a new dependency

**Native Sort:**

Pros:

* Built-in, no additional dependencies needed
* Lightweight and efficient

Cons:

* Can be more verbose in terms of code
* May not provide the same level of stability as Ramda's sort

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark is likely trying to measure the performance difference between these two approaches. However, there are other factors to consider when choosing a sorting algorithm:

* Stability: If the order of equal elements matters (e.g., in data structures), Ramda's stable sort may be preferable.
* Performance: Native sort may be faster for large datasets or certain use cases.

**Test Case Library**

In this case, the test uses the Ramda library for its `sort` function. The purpose of Ramda is to provide a functional programming approach to array manipulation and other data transformations.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in these benchmarks. However, it's worth noting that some sorting algorithms may rely on specific features like `let` declarations (introduced in ECMAScript 2015) for better performance.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives to Ramda and native sort include:

* Lodash: A popular utility library that provides a range of functions, including sorting algorithms.
* Array.prototype.sort() with a custom comparison function
* Other libraries like Mojs or jQuery (although these may have additional dependencies)

Keep in mind that the choice of sorting algorithm depends on the specific use case and requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Ramda	1868.7 Ops/sec
Native	1886.6 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Ramda sort vs. native sort (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs Native

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Ramda

Native

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 25 days ago):