Benchmark: Ramda sort vs JS native sort

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.25.0/ramda.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var diff = (a, b) => (a - b);
var bigArray = (new Array(1000)).fill(null).map(() => Math.floor(Math.random() * 200) );

Tests:

Ramda
R.sort(diff, bigArray)
Native
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 26 days ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

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

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two sorting algorithms:

1. **Native JavaScript sort**: This is the built-in sorting algorithm provided by JavaScript, which uses the Timsort algorithm (a hybrid of merge sort and insertion sort).
2. **Ramda sort**: Ramda is a functional programming library that provides a `R.sort` function for sorting arrays.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares two options:

* Native JavaScript sort: This option uses the built-in `sort` method provided by JavaScript.
* Ramda sort: This option uses the `R.sort` function from the Ramda library.

**Pros and cons of each approach**

**Native JavaScript sort:**

Pros:

* Fast execution, as it's implemented in native code
* Low overhead, as it only requires a single call to the `sort` method

Cons:

* May not perform well on certain data sets or edge cases
* Can be slower than Ramda sort for smaller data sets due to the overhead of the `R.sort` function

**Ramda sort:**

Pros:

* More readable and maintainable code, as it uses a functional programming approach
* Can handle edge cases and irregularly shaped data sets more effectively

Cons:

* Slower execution compared to Native JavaScript sort, due to the overhead of the Ramda library
* May require additional memory allocation for the Ramda library

**Other considerations**

The benchmark also considers the following factors:

* **DevicePlatform**: The test is run on a desktop environment with Chrome 129.
* **OperatingSystem**: The test is run on Mac OS X 10.15.7.

These factors can affect the performance of the sorting algorithms, as some operating systems or devices may have different performance characteristics.

**Library and syntax**

The benchmark uses the Ramda library for the `R.sort` function. Ramda is a functional programming library that provides a set of functions for working with arrays, objects, and other data structures.

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for sorting algorithms include:

* **Lodash sort**: Lodash is another popular functional programming library that provides a `_.sort` function.
* **Browser native sort**: Some browsers, such as Internet Explorer, provide their own custom sorting algorithm. However, these algorithms may not be as performant or efficient as Native JavaScript sort or Ramda sort.
* **External sorting libraries**: There are also external libraries available, such as [quick.js](https://github.com/MatthewHalford/quickjs), that provide optimized sorting algorithms for use in web applications.

I hope this explanation helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 129 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Ramda	9561.6 Ops/sec
Native	94901.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Ramda sort vs JS native sort (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Ramda vs Native

Created: 4 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 26 days ago):