Benchmark: _.isEmpty vs Array.length

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.arr = [];

Tests:

_.isEmpty
_.isEmpty(window.arr);
Array.length
window.arr.length === 0;

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
_.isEmpty
Array.length

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 measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. `_.isEmpty(window.arr)` using the Lodash library
2. `window.arr.length === 0` (i.e., checking if an empty array has a length of 0)

In essence, the benchmark tests which approach is faster and more efficient.

**Options compared:**

The two options being compared are:

* Using a library function (`_.isEmpty`) to check if an object is empty
* Implementing a custom check using the `length` property of an array

**Pros and cons:**

1. **Using _.isEmpty**: This approach has some pros:
	* It's concise and expressive, making the code easier to read.
	* The Lodash library is well-maintained and widely used.
2. **Custom implementation (Array.length)**:
	* This approach has its own set of pros:
		+ It's more intuitive for developers familiar with arrays.
		+ It's likely to be faster since it avoids the overhead of a function call.

However, there are also some cons:

* The custom implementation may not be as readable or maintainable, especially for those unfamiliar with arrays.
2. **Library vs Custom implementation**:
	* Using a library like Lodash can introduce additional overhead (e.g., parsing the function name, loading the library) that might affect performance.
	* A custom implementation, on the other hand, avoids this overhead.

**Other considerations:**

The benchmark's focus on performance makes it relevant for applications that require fast data processing or need to optimize for response times. However, in many cases, readability and maintainability are equally important considerations.

In general, developers should choose the approach that best fits their project's specific needs and constraints.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

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

As for other alternatives, there are many other libraries and functions available that can be used to check if an object or array is empty, such as `Array.isArray()` or a custom implementation using the `every()` method. However, these alternatives are not being tested in this specific benchmark.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/122.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 122 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
_.isEmpty	6106111.5 Ops/sec
Array.length	13437975.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

_.isEmpty vs Array.length (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: _.isEmpty vs Array.length

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

_.isEmpty

Array.length

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):