Benchmark: _.isEmpty vs native

HTML Preparation code:

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

Tests:

_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty([1, 2, 3]); _.isEmpty({ 'a': 1 });
native
const isEmpty = obj => [Object, Array].includes((obj || {}).constructor) && !Object.entries((obj || {})).length; isEmpty([1, 2, 3]); isEmpty({ 'a': 1 });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.isEmpty
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to explain the benchmark test and its results.

**What is being tested?**

The provided benchmark tests two different approaches to check if an object or array is empty:

1. **_.isEmpty (Lodash)**: The first test case uses the `_.isEmpty` function from the Lodash library, which is a utility library that provides a collection of functional programming helpers.
2. **native**: The second test case implements a custom function `isEmpty` to check if an object or array is empty.

**Options being compared**

The two options being compared are:

* Lodash's `_.isEmpty`
* A native implementation (custom code) using the `includes` method and `Object.entries`/`Object.length` properties.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Lodash's _.isEmpty**: Pros:
	* Well-tested and widely used library, so it's likely to be optimized for performance.
	* Provides a simple and concise way to check if an object or array is empty.
Cons:
	* Requires the Lodash library to be included in the test environment.
	* May not be as fast as native implementation due to the overhead of loading the library.
2. **Native implementation (isEmpty)**: Pros:
	* No external dependencies, so it's likely to be faster and more lightweight.
	* Can be optimized for specific use cases or browsers.
Cons:
	* Requires manual implementation of the logic, which can lead to errors or performance issues if not implemented correctly.

**Library usage**

The Lodash library is used in the first test case (`_.isEmpty([1, 2, 3]);`) and returns `true` because an array with no elements is considered empty.

**Special JS feature/syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing two different approaches to check if an object or array is empty.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few options:

* Using the `Array.prototype.length` property and checking if it's 0 for arrays.
* Using the `Object.keys()` method and checking if the result is an empty string for objects.
* Implementing a custom function using the `Boolean` constructor and checking if it returns false for empty values.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as efficient or concise as the native implementation, but they can provide useful insights into different approaches to solving this problem.

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/86.0.4240.75 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 86 on Mac OS X 10.15.6

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.isEmpty	2108615.2 Ops/sec
native	688488.1 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

_.isEmpty vs native (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.isEmpty vs native

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

native

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):