Benchmark: _.isEmpty vs You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore#_isempty

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.15/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.obj = {};

for (var i = 0, len = 100; i < len; i++) {
  obj['key' + i] = 'value' + i;
}

Tests:

_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty(window.obj);
https://github.com/you-dont-need/You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore#_isempty
const checkEmpty = obj => [Object, Array].includes((obj || {}).constructor) && !Object.entries(obj || {}).length; checkEmpty(window.obj)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.isEmpty
https://github.com/you-dont-need/You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore#_isempty

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks on MeasureThat.net.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare two approaches for checking if an object is empty: Lodash's `_.isEmpty()` function and a custom implementation using a library called "You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore".

**Lodash's _.isEmpty() Function**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as string manipulation, array processing, and object manipulation.

The `_isEmpty()` function takes an object as input and returns `true` if the object has no properties (i.e., it is empty) and `false` otherwise. The implementation is quite straightforward:

```javascript
function _isEmpty(obj) {
  return Object.keys(obj).length === 0;
}
```

This function uses the `Object.keys()` method to get an array of the object's property names, and then checks if the length of that array is 0.

**You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore**

The "You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore" library (also known as YDNL) provides a subset of Lodash functions with a smaller footprint. The custom implementation for checking if an object is empty uses the following logic:

```javascript
function isEmpty(obj) {
  return Array.isArray(obj) || typeof obj === 'object' && Object.keys(obj).length === 0;
}
```

This implementation checks two conditions: (1) whether the object is an array, and (2) whether the object is a plain object with no properties. If either condition is true, it returns `true`.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* Lodash's `_isEmpty()` function:
	+ Pros:
		- Simple implementation
		- Widely supported and well-tested
	+ Cons:
		- Requires an additional library dependency (Lodash)
		- May be slower due to the overhead of loading a large library
* YDNL's custom implementation:
	+ Pros:
		- Smaller footprint and faster load times
		- Still provides a robust way to check for empty objects
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual implementation, which can lead to errors if not done correctly
		- May not be as widely supported or well-tested as Lodash's implementation

**Other Considerations**

When choosing between these two approaches, consider the trade-offs between speed, simplicity, and library dependency. If you're working on a small project where performance is critical, the custom YDNL implementation might be a good choice. However, if you prioritize ease of use and wide support, Lodash's `_isEmpty()` function is still a great option.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're not satisfied with either approach or need additional functionality for your empty object checks, consider these alternatives:

* The `Object.keys()` method alone: This can be used to check if an object has any properties, but it requires iterating over the array of property names, which might be slower than using a specialized function like `_isEmpty()`.
* A simple custom implementation without relying on Lodash or YDNL: You can write your own lightweight implementation that checks for empty objects based on their type and structure. This approach requires manual implementation and testing to ensure correctness.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not offer the same level of performance, simplicity, or wide support as the original approaches.

I hope this explanation helps you understand the context behind the MeasureThat.net benchmark!

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/127.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 127 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.isEmpty	710632.3 Ops/sec
https://github.com/you-dont-need/You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore#_isempty	105809.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

_.isEmpty vs You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore#_isempty (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.isEmpty vs https://github.com/you-dont-need/You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore#_isempty

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

https://github.com/you-dont-need/You-Dont-Need-Lodash-Underscore#_isempty

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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