Benchmark: Filter-Map: Lodash vs Native (smaller array

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = Array(10000).fill({ filtering: true, mapping: 42 });

Tests:

Native filter-map
data.filter(({ filtering }) => filtering).map(({ mapping }) => mapping)
Lazy Lodash filter-map
_(data).filter('filtering').map('mapping').value()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native filter-map
Lazy Lodash filter-map

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two individual test cases for measuring the performance difference between using native JavaScript functions and Lodash, a popular JavaScript utility library, for filtering and mapping arrays. The tests involve creating an array with 10,000 elements, each containing `filtering` and `mapping` properties, and then filtering out elements based on the `filtering` property and mapping the remaining elements to their corresponding `mapping` values.

**Options compared**

There are two approaches being tested:

1. **Native filter-map**: This approach uses native JavaScript functions (`Array.prototype.filter()` and `Array.prototype.map()`) without any external library or helpers.
2. **Lazy Lodash filter-map**: This approach uses the Lodash library, specifically the `filter` and `map` functions, to perform the same filtering and mapping operations.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Native filter-map**
	* Pros:
		+ No external dependencies or overhead.
		+ Performance might be better due to lack of library bloat.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires manual handling of array elements, which can lead to more complex code.
		+ Might not be as readable or maintainable for large-scale applications.
2. **Lazy Lodash filter-map**
	* Pros:
		+ More readable and maintainable code due to the use of established library functions.
		+ Reduces boilerplate code and focus on the actual logic.
	* Cons:
		+ Requires including the external Lodash library, which adds overhead.
		+ Might have slower performance compared to native approaches.

**Other considerations**

1. **Library choice**: The choice of using a library like Lodash depends on the specific use case and personal preference. For small, one-off projects or educational purposes, native functions might be sufficient. However, for larger applications or more complex operations, libraries can provide significant benefits.
2. **Testing methodology**: MeasureThat.net's benchmarking approach seems to focus on the performance difference between two approaches rather than covering other aspects like readability, maintainability, or error handling.

**Library description**

Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object manipulation, and more. In this context, Lodash's `filter` and `map` functions are used to filter out elements based on the `filtering` property and map the remaining elements to their corresponding `mapping` values.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

None mentioned in the provided code snippets. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript features like ES6 modules (used by MeasureThat.net) or newer language features might be relevant for more advanced users.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative libraries or approaches, here are a few options:

1. **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility library that provides similar functions to Lodash.
2. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that offers a different set of functions for array manipulation and other tasks.
3. **Native JavaScript alternatives**: For specific operations, you might consider using native JavaScript functions or built-in methods (e.g., `every`, `some`, `forEach`) instead of relying on libraries.

Keep in mind that the choice of library or approach ultimately depends on your project's requirements, performance needs, and personal preference.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:71.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/71.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 71 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native filter-map	7882.0 Ops/sec
Lazy Lodash filter-map	5219.2 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Filter-Map: Lodash vs Native (smaller array (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Native filter-map vs Lazy Lodash filter-map

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Native filter-map

Lazy Lodash filter-map

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 26 days ago):